the 
university  of 
-  r  ticut 


lIllLi 


•  • 


hbl,stx  HQ     504.E6  1909 

Origin  of  the  family,  private  prop 


3    T153    DD7E7D31    T 


Vn 

I 


NO 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

PRIVATE   PROPERTY 

AND  THE  STATE 


KT 


FREDERICK  ^ENGELS^ 


TRANSLATED  BY  ERNEST  UNTERMANN 


CHICAGO 

CHARLES  H.  KERR  &  COMPANY 

1909 


HQ 
ft 


Copyright,  1902 
Bt  Charles  H.  Kbrb  &  Cohpani 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Page. 

[     Translator's  Preface 5 

Author's  Prefaces   9-12 

I      Prehistoric  Stages   27 

i      The  Family  35 

/^fee  Iroquois  Gens   102 

The  Grecian  Gens 120 

Origin  of  the  Attic  State 131 

Gens  and  State  in  Rome .' 145 

The  Gens  Among  Celts  and  Germans 158 

The  Rise  of  the  State  Among  Germans o  c .  176 


TRANSLATOR'S   PREFACE. 


"An  eternal  being  created  human  society  as  it  is  to- 
day, and  submission  to  'superiors'  and  'authority'  is 
Imposed  on  the  'lower'  classes  by  divine  will."  This 
suggestion,  coming  from  pulpit,  platform  and  press, 
has  hypnotized  the  minds  of  men  and  proves  to  be  one 
of  the  strongest  pillars  of  exploitation.  Scientific  in- 
vestigation has  revealed  long  ago  that  human  society 
is  not  cast  in  a  stereotyped  mould.  As  organic  life  on 
earth  assumes  different  shapes,  the  result  of  a  suc- 
cession of  chemical  changes,  so  the  group  life  of 
human  beings  develops  different  social  institutions  as 
a  result  of  increasing  control  over  environment,  espe- 
cially of  production  of  food,  clothing  and  shelter. 
Such  is  the  message  which  the  works  of  men  like 
Bachofen,  Morgan,  Marx,  Darwin,  and  others,  brought 
to  the  human  race.  But  this  message  never  reached 
the  great  mass  of  humanity.  In  the  United  States 
the  names  of  these  men  are  practically  unknown. 
Their  books  are  either  out  of  print,  as  is  the  case  with 
the  fundamental  works  of  Morgan,  or  they  are  not 
translated  into  English.  Only  a  few  of  them  are  ac- 
cessible to  a  few  individuals  on  the  dusty  shelves  of 
some  public  libraries.  Their  message  is  dangerous  to 
the  existing  order,  and  it  will  not  do  to  give  it  pub- 
licity at  a  time  when  further  intellectual  progress  of 
large  bodies  of  men  means  the  doom  of  the  ruling 
class.  The  capitalist  system  has  progressed  so  far, 
that  all  farther  progress  must  bring  danger  to  it  and 
to  those  who  are  supreme  through  it. 

But  the  forces,  which  have  brought  about  the  pres- 


b  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

ent  social  order,  continue  their  work  regardless  of  the 
wishes  of  a  few  exploiters.     A  comprehensive  work 
summarizing  our  present  knowledge  of  the  develop-, 
ment  of  social  institutions  is,  therefore,  a  timely  con 
tribution  to  socialist  propaganda.    In  order  to  meet  th' 
requirements  of  socialists,  such  a  summary  must  b 
written  by  a  socialist.    All  the  scientists  who  devote< 
themselves  to  the  study  of  primeval  society  belonged 
to  the  privileged  classes,  and  even  the  most  radical  of! 
them,  Lewis  Morgan,  was  prevented  by  his  environ- 
ment from  pointing  out  the  one  fact,  the  recognition 
of  which  distinguishes  the  socialist  position  from  all 
others— THE   EXISTENCE   OF   A  CLASS    STRUG^ 
GLE. 

The  strongest  allusion  to  this  fact  is  found  in  the 
following  passage  of  "Ancient  Society":  "Property 
and  office  were  the  foundations  upon  which  aristocracy 
planted  itself.  Whether  this  principle  shall  live  or  die 
has  been  one  of  the  great  problems  with  which  modern 
society  has  been  engaged.  ...  As  a  question  be- 
tween equal  rights  and  unequal  rights,  between  equaS 
laws  and  unequal  laws,  between  the  rights  of  wealth, 
of  rank  and  of  official  position,  and  the  power  ot 
justice  and  intelligence,  there  can  be  little  doubt  or 
the  ultimate  result"  (page  551). 

Yet  Morgan  held  that  ''several  thousand  years  have 
passed  away  without  the  overthrow  of  the  privileged 
classes,  excepting  in  the  United  States."  But  in  tht^ 
days  of  the  trusts,  of  government  by  injunction,  of  sets- 
of  400  with  all  the  arrogance  and  exclusiveness  ot 
European  nobility,  of  aristocratic  branches  of  thf 
Daughters  of  the  Revolution,  and  other  gifts  of  capi- 
talist development,  the  modern  American  working- 
man  will  hardly  share  Morgan's  optimistic  view  that 
there  are  no  privileged  classes  in  the  United  States. 
It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  to  this  day  Mor- 
gan's work  is  the  most  fundamental  and  exhaustive  of 


TRANSLATOR  S  PREFACE  7 

any  written  on  the  subject  of  ancient  social  develop- 
ment. Westermarck's  "History  of  Human  Marriage" 
treats  the  question  mainly  from  the  standpoint  of 
Ethnology  and  Natural  History.  As  a  scientific  treat- 
ise it  is  entirely  inadequate,  being  simply  a  compila- 
tion of  data  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  arranged  with- 
out the  understanding  of  gentile  organizations  or  of 
the  materialistic  conception  of  history,  and  used  for 
wild  speculations.  Kovalevsky's  argument  turns  on 
the  proposition  that  the  patriarchal  household  is  a 
typical  stage  of  society,  intermediate  between  the 
matriarchal  and  monogamic  family. 

None  of  these  men  could  discuss  the  matter  from 
the  proletarian  point  of  view.  For  in  order  to  do  this, 
It  is  necessary  to  descend  from  the  hills  of  class 
assumption  into  the  valley  of  proletarian  class-con- 
sciousness. This  consciousness  and  the  socialist  mind 
are  born  together.  The  key  to  the  philosophy  of  capi- 
talism is  the  philosophy  of  socialism.  With  the  rays 
of  this  searchlight,  Engels  exposed  the  pious  "deceiv- 
ers," property  and  the  state,  and  their  "lofty"  ideal, 
covetousness.  And  the  monogamic  family,  so  far  from 
being  a  divinely  instituted  "union  of  souls,"  is  seen  to 
be  the  product  of  a  series  of  material  and,  in  the  last 
analysis,  of  the  most  sordid  motives.  But  the  ethics 
of  property  are  worthy  of  a  system  of  production  that, 
In  its  final  stage,  shuts  the  overwhelming  mass  of 
longing  humanity  out  from  the  happiness  of  home  and 
family  life,  from  all  evolution  to  a  higher  individuality, 
and  even  drives  progress  back  and  forces  millions  of 
human  beings  into  irrevocable  degeneration. 

The  desire  for  a  higher  life  cannot  awake  in  a  man, 
until  he  is  thoroughly  convinced  that  his  present  life 
Is  ugly,  low,  and  capable  of  improvement  by  himself. 
The  present  little  volume  is  especially  adapted  to 
assist  the  exploited  of  both  sexes  in  recognizing  the 
actual  causes  which  brought  about  their  present  con- 


8  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

dition.  By  opening  the  eyes  of  the  deluded  throng  and 
reducing  the  vaporings  of  their  ignorant  or  selfish 
would-be  leaders  in  politics  and  education  to  sober 
reality,  it  will  show  the  way  out  of  the  darkness  and 
mazes  of  slavish  traditions  into  the  light  and  freedom 
of  a  fuller  life  on  earth. 

These  are  the  reasons  for  introducing  this  little 
volume  to  English  speaking  readers.  Without  any 
further  apology,  we  leave  them  to  its  perusal  and  to 
their  own  conclusions.       ERNEST  UNTERMANN. 

Chicago,  August,  1902. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFAOE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION, 

1884. 

The  following  chapters  are,  in  a  certain  sense,  exe- 
cuting a  bequest.  I^  was  no  less_a  man  than  Karl 
Marx  who  had  reserved"  to  himself  the_priyilege_of 
displaying  the  results  of  Morgan's  investigations_in 
connection  with  his  own  materialistic  conception  of 
history— which  I  might  call  ours  within^ertain  limits. .  ,\ 
He^shed  thus  to  elucidate  the  juU  meaning  of  this/  \ 
conception.  For  in  America^  Morgan^-had^in^^ajnannerA  ^ 
discovered  anew  the  materialistic-^on€eption_o£-M«^ 
tory;__originated-hy  Marx  forty  -years-ago.  In_com- 
parinjg Jbarbarism  and  civilization,  he  had  arrived.ln 
the  main,  at  the  same  results  as  Marx.  4ud  just  as 
'•Capital"  was  zealously  plagiarized  and  persistently 
passed  over  in.  silence  by  the  professional  economists 
in  Germany,  so  Morgan's  "Ancient  Society"*  was 
treated  by  the  spokesmen  of  "prehistoric"  science  in 
England. 

My  work  can  offer  only  a  meager  substitute  for  that 
which  my  departed  friend  was  not  destined  to  accom- 
plish. But  in  his  copious  extracts  from  Morgan,  I 
have  critical  notes  which  I  herewith  reproduce  as 
fully  as  feasible. 

Recording  to  the  n3ateriallstic_conception,  the  de- 
cisive elementjofjbist^^^ 

ti^and  reproduction^,of_life-and  its  materiaLr^qmre-  r-y 
m^3'  TMs^iiB^fiS,-onLlhfi_Qnfi_haM^thej)roductionV^ 
ot  the  means  of  existence  (food,  clothing,  shelter  and 

•Ancient  Society  or  Researches  In  the  Lines  of  Human 
Progress  from  Savagery,  through  Barbarism,  to  Civilization. 
By  Lewis  H.  Morgan.  Henry  Holt  &  Co.  1877.  The  book, 
printed  In  America,  was  singularly  difficult  to  obtain  In 
London.    The  author  died  a  few  years  ago. 


10 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 


the  necessary  tools) ;  oEulhe  other  hand,  the  generation 
of  children,  t.he-prQpag^atLon  oMhe  species.    The  social 
institutions,  under  which  the~people~of  a  certain  his- 
torical period  and  of  a  certain  country  are  living,  are 
dependent  on  these  two  forms  of  production;  partly 
on  the  development  of  labor,  partly  on  that  of  the 
family.     The  less  labor  is   developed,   and  the  less 
abundant  the  quantity  of  Its  production  and,  there- 
fore, the  wealth  of  society,  the  more  society  is  seen 
to  be  under  the  domination  of  sexual  ties.    However, 
under  this  formation  based  on  sexual  ties,  the  pro- 
ductivity of  labor  is  developed  more  and  more.    At  the 
'  same  time,  private  property  and  exchange,   distinc- 
j  tions  of  wealth,  exploitation  of   the  labor  power  of 
f  others  and,  by  this  agency,  the  foundation  of  class 
antagonism,  are  formed.    Thes6  new  elements  of  so- 
:  ciety  strive  in  the  course  of  time  to  adapt  the  old  state 
of  society  to  the  new  conditions,  until  the  impossl- 
.bllity  of  harmonizing  these  two  at  last  leads  to  a  com- 
Splete  revolution.    The  old  form  of  society  founded  on 
sexual  relations  is  abolished  in  the  clash  with  the 
recently  developed  social  classes^    A  new  society  steps 
Into  being,  crystallized  into  the  state.    The  units  ot 
the  latter  are  no  longer  sexual,  but  local  groups;  a 
society  in  which  family  relations  are  entirely  subordi- 
nated to  property  relations,  thereby  freely  developing 
those  class  antagonisms  and  class  struggles  that  make 
up  the  contents  of  all  written  history  up  to  the  present 
ime. 

Morgan  deserves^great^credit  for  rediscovering^  ajid 
r^estaElIafia^inJtsmain^ouQi^^  ot 

our_written_^istor^^~and'^^ 

ganizati ons__oF^the3Nofr h~:S:mBri can  ^dlans  the^key 
that  opens_an_.JjiSIji^agapiiratyte  riddles-^^^  most 
ancient  uree^^Joman  and^jefmanJTs^^  Hi_s  book 
l05tlhe::WofklofIS!iS5i:±j2ayr  Forjnore^than_forty 
years  he  grappled  with  the  subject^  until  he  mas^ 


AUTHORS    PREFACE  H 

tered  it  fully.    Therefore  his  work  is  one  of  the  few 
epochal  publications  of  our  time. 

In  the  following  demonstrations,  the  reader  will,  on 
the  whole,  easily  distinguish  what  originated  with 
Morgan  and  what  was  added  by  myself.  In  the  his- 
torical sections  on  Greece  and  Rome,  I  have  not  lim- 
ited myself  to  Morgan's  material,  but  have  added  as 
much  as  I  could  supply.  The  sections  on  Celts  and 
Germans  essentially  belong  to  me.  Morgan  had  only 
sources  of  minor  quality  at  his  disposal,  and  for  Ger- 
man conditions— aside  from  Tacitus — only  the  worth- 
less, unbridled  falsifications  of  Freeman.  The  eco- 
nomic deductions,  sufficient  for  Morgan's  purpose,  but 
wholly  inadequate  for  mine,  were  treated  anew  by 
myself.  And  lastly  I  am,  of  course,  responsible  for  all 
final  conclusions,  unless  Morgan  is  expressly  quoted. 

Frederick  Engels. 


12  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE   TO   THE   FOURTH    EDI- 
TION,  1891. 

The  first  large  editions  of  this  work  have  been  out 
of  print  for  nearly  six  months,  and  the  publisher  has 
for  some  time  requested  of  me  the  arrangement  of  a 
new  edition.  Urgent  duties  have  hitherto  prevented 
me.  Seven  years  have  passed,  since  the  first  edition 
made  its  appearance;  during  this  time,  the  study  of 
primeval  forms  of  the  family  has  made  considerable 
progress.  Hence  it  became  necessary  to  apply  dili- 
gently the  improving  and  supplementing  hand,  more 
especially,  as  the  proposed  stereotyping  of  the  present 
text  will  make  further  changes  impossible  for  some 
time. 

Consequently,  I  have  subjected  the  whole  text  to  a 
thorough  revision  and  made  a  number  of  additions 
which,  I  hope,  will  give  due  recognition  to  the  present 
stage  of  scientific  progress.  Furthermore,  I  give  in 
the  course  of  this  preface  a  short  synopsis  of  the 
history  of  the  family  as  treated  by  various  writers 
from  Bachofen  to  Morgan.  I  am  doing  this  mainly 
because  the  English  prehistoric  school,  tinged  with 
chauvinism,  is  continually  doing  its  utmost  to  kill  by 
its  silence  the  revolution  in  primeval  conceptions 
effected  by  Morgan's  discoveries.  At  the  same  time 
this  school  is  not  at  all  backward  in  appropriating  to 
its  own  use  the  results  of  Morgan's  study.  In  certain 
other  circles  also  this  English  example  is  imhappily 
followed  rather  extensively. 

My  work  has  been  translated  into  different  languages. 
First  into  Italian;  L'origine  della  famiglia,  della  pro- 
priety privata  e  dello  stato,  versione  riveduta  dair 
autore,  di  Pasquale  Martignetti;    Benevento,     1885. 


author's  preface  13 

Then  into  Roumanian:  Origina  familei,  proprietatei 
private  si  a  statului,  traducere  de  Ivan  Nadejde,  in  tbe 
Jassy  periodical  "Contemporanul,"  September,  1886, 
to  May,  1886.  Furttiermore  into  Danisli:  Familjens, 
Privatejendommees  og  Statens  Oprindelse,  Dansk,  af 
Forfatteren  gennemgaaet  Udgave,  besorget  af  Gerson 
Trier,  Kjoebenhavn,  1888.  A  French  translation  by 
Henri  Rav6,  founded  on  the  present  German  edition, 
is  under  the  press. 

Up  to  the  beginning  of  the  sixties,  a  history  of  the 
family  cannot  be  spoken  of.  This  branch  of  historical 
science  was  then  entirely  under  the  influence  of  the 
decalogue.  The  patriarchal  form  of  the  family,  de- 
scribed more  exhaustively  by  Moses  than  by  anybody 
else,  was  not  only,  without  further  comment,  consid- 
ered as  the  most  ancient,  but  also  as  identical  with  the 
family  of  our  times.  No  historical  development  of  the 
family  was  even  recognized.  At  best  it  was  admitted 
that  a  period  of  sexual  license  might  have  existed  in 
primeval  times. 

To  be  sure,  aside  from  monogamy,  oriental  polygamy 
and  Indo-Tibethan  polyandry  were  known;  but  these 
three  forms  could  not  be  arranged  in  any  historical 
order  and  stood  side  by  side  without  any  connection. 
That  some  nations  of  ancient  history  and  some  savage 
tribes  of  the  present  day  did  not  trace  their  descent  to 
the  father,  but  to  the  mother,  hence  considered  the 
female  lineage  as  alone  valid;  that  many  nations  of 
our  time  prohibit  intermarrying  inside  of  certain  large 
groups,  the  extent  of  which  was  not  yet  ascertained 
and  that  this  custom  is  found  in  all  parts  of 
the  globe— these  facts  were  known,  indeed,  and  more 
examples  were  continually  collected.  But  nobody 
knew  how  t*  make  use  of  them.  Even  in  E.  B.  Tay- 
lor's "Researches  into  the  Early  History  ©f  Mankind," 
etc.  (18G5),  they  are  only  mentioned  as  "queer  cus- 
toms" together  with  the  usage  of  some  savage  tribes 


14  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

to  prohibit  the  touching  of  burning  wood  with  iron 
tools,  and  similar  religious  absurdities. 

This  history  of  the  family  dates  from  1861,  the  year 
of  the  publication  of  Bachofen's  "Mutterrecht"  (ma- 
ternal law).  Here  the  author  makes  the  following 
propositions: 

1.  That  in  the  beginning  people  lived  in  unrestricted 
sexual  intercourse,  which  he  dubs,  not  Tery  felicitous- 
ly, hetaerism. 

2.  That  such  an  intercourse  excludes  any  absolutely 
certain  means  of  determining  parentage;  that  conse- 
quently descent  could  only  be  traced  by  the  female 
line  in  compliance  with  maternal  law— and  that  this 
was  universally  practiced  by  all  the  nations  of  an- 
tiquity. 

3.  That  consequently  women  as  mothers,  being  the 
only  well  known  parents  of  younger  generations,  re- 
ceived a  high  tribute  of  respect  and  deference,  amount- 
ing to  a  complete  women's  rule  (gynaicocracy),  accord- 
ing to  Bachofen's  idea. 

4.  That  the  transition  to  monogamy,  reserving  a 
certain  woman  exclusively  to  one  man,  implied  the 
violation  of  a  primeval  religious  law  (i.  e.,  practically 
a  violation  of  the  customary  right  of  all  other  men  to 
the  same  woman),  which  violation  had  to  be  atoned 
for  or  its  permission  purchased  by  the  surrender  of  the 
women  to  the  public  for  a  limited  time. 

Bachofen  finds  the  proofs  of  these  propositions  in 
numerous  quotations  from  ancient  classics,  collected 
with  unusual  diligence.  The  transition  from 
*'hetaerism"  to  monogamy  and  from  maternal  to  pa- 
ternal law  is  accomplished  according  to  him— espe- 
cially by  the  Greeks— through  the  evolution  of  relig- 
ious ideas.  New  gods,  the  representatives  of  the 
new  ideas,  are  added  to  the  traditional  group  of  gods, 
the  representatives  of  old  ideas;  the  latter  are  forced 
to  the  background  more  and  more  by  the  former.    Ac- 


AUTHOR*  S    PREFACE  15 

cording  to  Bachofen,  therefore,  it  is  not  the  develop- 
ment of  the  actual  conditions  of  life  that  has  effected 
the  historical  changes  in  the  relative  social  positions 
of  man  and  wife,  but  the  religious  reflection  of  these 
conditions  in  the  minds  of  men.  Hence  Bachofen  rep- 
resents the  Oresteia  of  Aeschylos  as  the  dramatic  de- 
scription of  the  fight  between  the  vanishing  maternal 
and  the  paternal  law,  rising  and  victorious  during  the 
time  of  the  heroes. 

Klytaemnestra  has  killed  her  husband  Agamemnon 
on  his  return  from  the  Trojan  war  for  the  sake  of  her 
lover  Aegisthos;  but  Orestes,  her  son  by  Agamemnon, 
avenges  the  death  of  his  father  by  killing  his  mother. 
Therefore  he  is  persecuted  by  the  Erinyes,  the  de- 
monic protectors  of  maternal  law,  according  to  which 
the  murder  of  a  mother  is  the  most  horrible,  inex- 
piable crime.  But  Apollo,  who  has  instigated  Orestes 
to  this  act  by  his  oracle,  and  Athene,  who  is  invoked  as 
arbitrator— the  two  deities  representing  the  new  pa- 
ternal order  of  things— protect  him.  Athene  gives  a 
hearing  to  both  parties.  The  whole  question  is  sum- 
marized in  the  ensuing  debate  between  Orestes  and 
the  Erinyes.  Orestes  claims  that  Klytemnaestra  has 
committed  a  twofold  crime:  by  killing  her  husband 
she  has  killed  his  father.  Why  do  the  Erinyes  perse- 
cute him  and  not  her  who  is  far  more  guilty? 

The  reply  is  striking: 

"She  was  not  related,  by  blood  to  the  man  whom  she 
slew." 

The  murder  of  a  man  not  consanguineous,  even 
though  he  be  the  husband  of  the  murderess,  is  expia- 
ble,  does  not  concern  the  Erinyes;  it  is  only  their  duty 
to  prosecute  the  murder  of  consanguineous  relatives. 
According  to  maternal  law,  therefore,  the  murder  of  a 
mother  is  the  most  heinous  and  inexpiable  crime.  Now 
Apollo  speaks  in  defense  of  Orestes.  Athene  then 
calls  on  the  areopagites— the  Jurors   of    Athens— to 


l6  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

vote;  the  votes  are  even  for  acquittal  and  for  con- 
demnation. Thereupon  Athene  as  president  of  the 
jury  casts  her  vote  in  favor  of  Orestes  and  acquits 
him.  Paternal  law  has  gained  a  victory  over  maternal 
law,  the  deities  of  the  "younger  generation,"  as  the 
Erinyes  call  them,  vanquish  the  latter.  These  are 
finally  persuaded  to  accept  a  new  oflSce  under  the  new 
order  of  things. 

This  new,  but  decidedly  accurate  interpretation  of 
the  Oresteia  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  best 
passages  in  the  whole  book,  but  it  proves  at  the  same 
time  that  Bachofen  himself  believes  as  much  in  the 
Erinyes,  in  Apollo  and  in  Athene,  as  Aeschylos  did  in 
his  day.  He  really  believes,  that  they  performed  the 
miracle  of  securing  the  downfall  of  maternal  law 
through  paternal  law  during  the  time  of  the  Greek 
heroes.  That  a  similar  conception,  representing  re- 
ligion as  the  main  lever  of  the  world's  history,  mus 
finally  lead  to  sheer  mysticism,  is  evident. 

Therefore  it  is  a  troublesome  and  not  always  profit- 
able task  to  work  your  way  through  the  big  volume 
of  Bachofen.  Still,  all  this  does  not  curtail  the  value 
of  his  fundamental  work.  He  was  the  first  to  replace 
the  assumption  of  an  unknown  primeval  condition  of 
licentious  sexual  intercourse  by  the  demonstration 
that  ancient  classical  literature  points  out  a  multitude 
of  traces  proving  the  actual  existence  among  Greeks 
and  Asiatics  of  other  sexual  relations  before  mon- 
ogamy. These  relations  not  only  permitted  a  man 
to  have  intercourse  with  several  women,  but  also  left 
a  woman  free  to  have  sexual  intercourse  with  sev- 
eral men  without  violating  good  morals.  This  custom 
did  not  disappear  without  leaving  as  a  survival  the 
form  of  a  general  surrender  for  a  limited  time  by 
which  women  had  to  purchase  the  right  of  monogamy. 
Hence  descent  could  originally  only  be  traced  by  the 
female  line,  from  mother  to  mother.    The  sole  legality 


i 


AUTHOR  S    PREFACE  17 

of  the  female  line  was  preserved  far  into  the  time  of 
monogamy  with  assured,  or  at  least  acknowledged, 
paternity.  Consequently,  the  original  position  of  the 
mothers  as  the  sole  absolutely  certain  parents  of  their 
children  secured  for  them  and  for  all  other  women  a 
higher  social  level  than  they  have  ever  enjoyed  since. 
Although  Bachofen,  biased  by  his  mystic  conceptions, 
did  not  formulate  these  propositions  so  clearly,  still  he 
proved  their  coiTectness.  This  was  equivalent  to  a 
complete  revolution  in  1861. 

Bachofen's  big  volume  was  written  in  German,  i.  e., 
In  the  language  of  a  nation  that  cared  less  than  any 
other  of  its  time  for  the  history  of  the  present  family. 
Therefore  he  remained  unknown.  The  man  next 
succeeding  him  in  the  same  field  made  his  appearance 
in  1865  without  having  ever  heard  of  B^i^oten. 

This  successor  was  .T._F^^McLennan.  the  direct  op- 
posite of  his  predecessor,  "instead  of  the  talented  mys- 
tic, we  have  here  the  dry  jurist;  In  place  of  the  rank 
growth  of  poetical  imagination,  we  find  the  plausible 
combinations  of  the  pleading  lawyer.  McLennan  finds 
among  many  savage,  barbarian  and  even  civilized  peo- 
ple of  ancient  and  modern  times  a  type  of  marriage 
forcing  the  bride-groom,  alone  or  in  co-operation  with 
his  friends,  to  go  through  the  form  of  a  mock  forcible 
abduction  of  the  bride.  This  must  needs  be  a  survival 
of  an  earlier  custom  when  men  of  one  tribe  actually 
secured  their  wives  by  forcible  abduction  from  an- 
other tribe.  How  did  this  "robber  marriage"  origin- 
ate? As  long  as  the  men  could  find  women  enough  in 
their  own  tribe,  there  was  no  occasion  for  robbing. 
It  so  happens  that  we  frequently  find  certain  groups 
among  undeveloped  nations  (which  in  1865  were  often 
considered  identical  with  the  tribes  themselves),  in- 
side of  which  intermarrying  was  prohibited.  In  con- 
sequence the  men  (or  women)  of  a  certain  group  were 
forced  to  choose  their  wives  (or  husbands)  outside  of 


l8  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

their  group.  Other  tribes  again  observe  the  custom  of 
forcing  their  men  to  choose  their  women  inside  of 
their  own  group  only.  McLennan  calls  the  first  exo- 
gamous,  the  second  endogamous,  and  construes  forth- 
with a  rigid  contrast  between  exogamojis  and  en- 
dogamous "tribes."  And  though  his  own  investiga- 
tion of  exogamy  makes  It  painfully  obvious  that  this 
contrast  in  many,  if  not  in  most  or  even  in  all  cases, 
exists  in  his  own  imagination  only,  he  nevertheless 
makes  it  the  basis  of  his  entire  theory.  According  to 
the  latter,  exogamous  tribes  can  choose  their  women 
only  from  other  tribes.  And  as  in  conformity  with 
their  savage  state  a  condition  of  continual  warfare 
existed  among  such  tribes,  women  could  only  be  se- 
cured by  abduction. 

McLennan  further  asks:  Whence  this  custom  of 
exogamy?  The  idea  of  consanguinity  and  rape  could 
not  have  anything  to  do  with  it,  since  these  concep- 
tions were  developed  much  later.  But  it  was  a  widely 
spread  custom  among  savages  to  kill  female  children 
Immediately  after  their  birth.  This  produced  a  sur- 
plus of  males  in  such  a  tribe  which  naturally  resulted 
in  the  condition  where  several  men  had  one  woman- 
polyandry.  The  next  consequence  was  that  the 
mother  of  a  child  could  be  ascertained,  but  not  its 
father;  hence:  descent  only  traced  by  the  female  line 
and  exclusion  of  male  lineage— maternal  law.  And  a 
second  consequence  of  the  scarcity  of  women  in  a  cer- 
tain tribe— a  scarcity  that  was  somwhat  mitigated,  but 
not  relieved  by  polyandry— was  precisely  the  forcible 
abduction  of  women  from  other  tribes.  "As  exogamy 
and  polyandry  are  referable  to  one  and  the  same  cause 
—a  want  of  balance  between  the  sexes— we  are  forced 
to  regard  all  the  exogamous  races  as  having  originally 
been  polyandrous.  .  .  .  Therefore  we  must  hold  it 
to  be  beyond  dispute  that  among  exogamous  races  the 


AUTHOR  S    PREFACE  19 

first  system  of  kinship  was  that  which  recognized 
blood-ties  through  mothers  only."* 

Itjs  the  merit  of  McLennan  to  have  pointPfLmrt-  thft 
general  extent  and  the  great  importaii^p  of  what  he 
calls  exogamy.  However,  hg^has  by  na  means  dis- 
covered  the  fact  of^xogamous  groups;  neither  did  he 
understand^  their~presence.  Aside  from  earlier  scat- 
tered notes  of  many  observers— from  which  McLennan 
quoted— Latham  had  accurately  and  correctly  de- 
scribed this  institution  among  the  Indian  Magars*  and 
stated  that  it  was  widespread  and  practiced  in  all 
parts  of  the  globe.  McLennan  himself  quotes  this 
passage.  Asearly  as  1847,  our  friend  Morgan  had  also 
pointed  out_and/correcily  described  the  same  custom  in 
hisj£tiers_on_the  Iroquois  (in  the  American  Review) 
andJiLlSfi]^  'lT^heJL^ague_ottM  Ii-Oquois.''  We  shall 
see,  how  the  lawyer's  instinct  of  McLennan  has  intro- 
duced more  disorder  Into  this  subject  than  the  mystic 
imagination  of  Bachofen  did  into  the  field  of  maternal 
law. 

It  must  be  said  to  McLennan's  credit  thatJie  recog- 
nized the  custo.ffljQf  trncing  decent  by  maternal  Iflw  b° 
primeval,  although  JBachof  en  has  anticipated  him  In 
this  respect.  McLennan  has  admitted  this  later  on. 
But  here  again  he  is  not  clear  on  the  subject.  He 
always  speaks  of  "kinship  through  females  only"  and 
uses  this  expression,  correctly  applicable  to  former 
stages,  in  connection  with  later  stages  of  development, 
when  descent  and  heredity  were  still  exclusively  traced 
along  female  lines,  but  at  the  same  time  kinship  on 
the  male  side  began  to  be  recognized  and  expressed. 
It  is  the  narrow-mindedness  of  the  jurist,  establishing 
a  fixed  legal  expression  and  employing  it  incessantly 


♦McLennan,   Studies  in  Ancient  History,  1886.     Primitive 
Marriage,  p.  124. 
*Latham,  Descriptive  Ettinology,  1859. 


20  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

to  denote  conditions  to  which  it  should  no  longer  be 
applied. 

In  spite  of  its  plausibility,  McLennan's  theory  did 
not  seem  too  well  founded  even  in  the  eyes  of  its  au- 
thor. At  least  he  finds  it  remarkable  himself  "that 
the  form  of  capture  is  now  most  distinctly  marked  and 
impressive  Just  among  those  races  which  have  male 
kinship."* 

And  again:  *'It  is  a  curious  fact  that  nowhere  now, 
that  we  are  aware  of,  is  infanticide  a  system  where 
exogamy  and  the  earliest  form  of  kinship  co-exists.** 

Both  these  facts  directly  disprove  his  method  of  ex- 
planation, and  he  can  only  meet  them  with  new  and 
still  more  complicated  hypotheses. 

In  spite  of  this,  his  theory  found  great  approval  and 
favor  in  England.  Here  McLennan  was  generally  con- 
sidered as  the  founder  of  the  history  of  the  family 
and  as  the  first  authority  on  this  subject.  His  contrast 
of  exogamous  and  endogamous  "tribes"  remained  the 
recognized  foundation  of  the  customary  views,  how- 
ever much  single  exceptions  and  modifications  were 
admitted.  This  antithesis  became  the  eye-flap  that 
rendered  impossible  any  free  view  of  the  field  under 
Investigation  and,  therefore,  any  decided  progress.  It 
Is  our  duty  to  confront  this  overrating  of  McLennan, 
practised  in  England  and  copied  elsewhere,  with  the 
fact  that  he  has  done  more  harm  with  his  ill-conceived 
contrast  of  exogamous  and  endogamous  tribes  than  he 
has  done  good  by  his  investigations. 

Moreover,  in  the  course_of  time  more_andjQQre iacts 
became_known  that_did  not  fit  into  his  neat  frame. 
McLennan  knew  only_  three_ joroi3__of_jaaiTiage: 
polygamy,  golxandry  and  monogamy.    But  once^tten- 

tlon   had   been   dirPPfpdtnjfTiis  pnint,   fhfiTi    mrvrA   and 


•McLennan,  Studies  In  Ancient  History,  1886.     Primitive 
Marriage,  p.  140. 
••Ibidena,  p.  146. 


AUTHOR  S    PREFACE  21 

more  proofs  were  founfi  fhf^t  amnng  nr>fiPVAiApQ«^  na- 
tions there_w^recounubia]_fQrmsJ^  of 
men~possesse(i_argrouB_^^  women.  LjiMiock  in  his 
"Origin  of  Civilizatton"  (1870)  recognized  this  "com- 
munal marriage"  as  a  historical  fact. 

Immediately  after  him,  in  1871,  Morgan  appeared 
with  fresh  and,  in  many  respects,  conclusive  material. 
He  had  convinced  himself  that  the  peculiar  system  of 
kinship  in  vogue  among  the  Iroquois  was  common  to 
all  the  aborigines  of  the  United  States,  and  practised 
all  over  the  continent,  although  it  was  in  direct  con- 
tradiction with  all  the  degrees  of  relation  arising  from 
the  connubial  system  in  practice  there.  He  prevailed 
on  the  federal  government  to  collect  information  on 
the  systems  of  kinship  of  other  nations  by  the  help  of 
question  blanks  and  tables  drawn  up  by  himself.  The 
answers  brought  the  following  results: 

1.  The  kinship  system  of  the  American  Indians  is 
also  in  vogue  in  Asia,  and  in  a  somewhat  modified 
form  among  numerous  tribes  of  Africa  and  Australia. 

2.  This  system  finds  a  complete  explanation  in  a 
certain  form  of  communal  marriage  now  in  process  of 
decline  in  Hawaii  and  some  Australian  islands. 

3.  By  the  side  of  this  marital  form,  there  is  in  prac- 
tice on  the  same  islands  a  system  of  kinship  only 
explicable  by  a  still  more  primeval  and  now  extinct 
form  of  communal  marriage. 

The  collected  data  and  the  conclusions  of 
Morgan  were  published  in  his  "Systems  of  Con- 
sanguinity and  Aflanity,"  1871,  and  discussion 
transferred  to  a  far  more  extensive  field.  Tak- 
ing his  departure  from  the  system  of  aflinity  he 
reconstructed  the  corresponding  forms  of  the  family, 
thereby  opening  a  new  road  to  scientific  investigation 
and  extending  the  retrospective  view  into  prehistoric 
periods  of  human  life.    Once  this  view  gained  recogni- 


22  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

tion,  then  the  frail  structure  of  McLennan  would 
vanish  into  thin  air. 

McLennan  defended  his  theory  in  the  new  edition 
of  "Primitive  Marriage"  (Studies  in  Ancient  History, 
1875).  While  he  himself  most  artificially  combines 
into  a  history  of  the  family  a  number  of  hypotheses,  he 
not  only  demands  proofs  from  Lubbock  and  Morgan 
for  every  one  of  their  propositions,  but  insists  on 
proofs  of  such  indisputable  validity  as  Is  solely  recog- 
nized in  a  Scotch  court.  And  this  is  done  by  the  same 
man  who  unhesitatingly  concludes  that  the  following 
people  practiced  polyandry:  The  Germans,  on  account 
of  the  intimate  relation  between  uncle  and  nephew 
(mother's  brother  and  sister's  son);  the  Britons,  be- 
cause Cesar  reports  that  the  Britons  have  ten  to  twelve 
women  in  common;  barbarians,  because  all  other 
reports  of  the  old  writers  on  community  of  women 
are  misinterpreted  by  him!  One  is  reminded  of  a 
prosecuting  attorney  who  takes  all  possible  liberty 
in  making  up  his  case,  but  who  demands  the  most 
formal  and  legally  valid  proof  for  every  word  of  the 
lawyer  for  the  defense. 

He  asserts  that  communal  marriage  Is  purely  the 
outgrowth  of  imagination,  and  in  so  doing  falls  far 
behind  Bachof en.  He  represents  Morgan's  systems  of 
aflanity  as  mere  codes  of  conventional  politeness, 
proven  by  the  fact  that  Indians  address  also  strangers, 
white  people,  as  brother  or  father.  This  is  like  assert- 
ing that  the  terms  father,  mother,  brother,  sister  are 
simply  meaningless  forms  of  address,  because  Catholic 
priests  and  abbesses  are  also  addressed  as  father  and 
mother,  and  monks  and  nuns,  or  even  free-masons  and 
members  of  English  professional  clubs  in  solemn  ses- 
sion, as  brother  and  sister.  In  short,  McLennan's 
defense  was  extremely  weak. 

One  point  still  remained  that  had  not  been  attacked. 
The  contrast  of  exogamous  and  endogamous  tribes, 


AUTHOR  S    PREFACE  23 

on  Which  his  whole  system  was  founded,  was  not  only 
left  unchallenged,  but  was  even  generally  regarded  as 
the  pivotal  point  of  the  entire  history  of  the  family.  It 
was  admitted  that  McLennan's  attempt  to  explain 
this  contrast  was  insuflScient  and  in  contradiction  with 
the  facts  enumerated  by  himself.  But  the  contrast 
itself,  the  existence  of  two  diametrically  opposed 
forms  of  independent  and  absolute  groups,  one  of 
them  marrying  the  women  of  its  own  group,  the  other 
strictly  forbidding  this  habit,  was  considered  irrefuta- 
ble gospel.  Compare  e.  g.  Giraud-Teulon's  "Origines 
de  la  famille"  (1874)  and  even  Lubbock's  "Origin  of 
Civilization"  (4th  edition,  1882). 

At  this  point  Morgan's  main  work,  "Ancient  So- 
ciety" (1877),  inserts  its  lever.  It  is  this  work  on  which 
the  present  volume  is  based.  Here  we  find  clearly 
demonstrated  what  was  only  dimly  perceived  by 
Morgan  in  1871.  There  is  no  antithesis  between 
endogamy  and  exogamy;  no  exogamous  "tribes"  have 
been  found  up  to  the  present  time.  But  at  the  time 
when  communal  marriage  still  existed— and  in  all 
probability  it  once  existed  everywhere— a  tribe  was 
subdivided  into  a  number  of  groups— "gentes"— con- 
sanguineous on  the  mother's  side,  within  which  inter- 
marrying was  strictly  forbidden.  The  men  of  a  certain 
"gens,"  therefore,  could  choose  their  wives  within 
the  tribe,  and  did  so  as  a  rule,  but  had  to  choose 
them  outside  of  the  "gens."  And  while  thus  the  "gens" 
was  strictly  exogamous,  the  tribe  comprising  an 
aggregate  of  "gentes"  was  equally  endogamous.  Thi? 
fact  gave  the  final  blow  to  McLennan's  artificial 
structure. 

But  Morgan  did  not  rest  here.  The  "gens"  of  the 
American  Indians  furthermore  assisted  him  in  gain- 
ing another  important  step  in  the  field  under  investi- 
gation. He  found  that  this  "gens,"  organized  in  con- 
formity with  maternal  law,  was  the  original  form  out 


24  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

of  which  later  on  the  "gens"  by  paternal  law  devel- 
oped, such  as  we  find  it  among  the  civilized  nations  of 
antiquity.  The  Greek  and  Roman  "gens,"  an  un- 
solved riddle  to  all  historians  up  to  our  time,  found  Its 
explanation  in  the  Indian  "gens."  A  new  foundation 
was  discovered  for  the  entire  primeval  history. 

The  repeated  discovery  that  the  original  maternal 
"gens"  was  a  preliminary  stage  of  the  paternal  "gens" 
of  civilized  nations  has  the  same  signification  for 
primeval  history  that  Darwin's  theory  of  evolution 
had  for  biology  and  Marx's  theory  of  surplus  value 
for  political  economy.  Morgan  was  thereby  enabled  to 
sketch  the  outline  of  a  history  of  the  family,  showing 
In  bold  strokes  at  least  the  classic  stages  of  develop- 
ment, so  far  as  the  available  material  will  at  present 
permit  such  a  thing.  It  is  clearly  obvious  that  this 
marks  a  new  epoch  in  the  treatment  of  primeval  his- 
tory. The  maternal  "gens"  has  become  the  pivot  on 
which  this  whole  science  revolves.  Since  its  discovery 
we  know  in  what  direction  to  continue  our  researches, 
what  to  investigate  and  how  to  arrange  the  results 
of  our  studies.  In  consequence,  progress  in  this  field 
is  now  much  more  rapid  than  before  the  publication  of 
Morgan's  book. 

The  discoveries  of  Morgan  are  now  universally  rec- 
ognized, or  rather  appropriated,  even  by  the  archaeol- 
ogists of  England.  But  hardly  one  of  them  openly 
admits  that  we  owe  this  revolution  of  thought  to 
Morgan.  His  book  is  ignored  in  England  as  much 
as  possible,  and  he  himself  is  dismissed  with  conde- 
scending praise  for  the  excellence  of  his  former  works. 
The  details  of  his  discussion  are  diligently  criticised, 
but  his  really  great  discoveries  are  covered  up  obstin- 
ately. The  original  edition  of  "Ancient  Society"  is 
out  of  print;  there  is  no  paying  market  for  a  work 
of  this  kind  in  America;  in  England,  it  appears,  the 
book   was  systematically  suppressed,  and  the  only 


author's  preface  25 

edition  of  this  epochal  work  still  circulating  in  the 
market  is— the  German  translation. 

Whence  this  reserve?  We  can  hardly  refrain  from 
calling  it  a  conspiracy  to  kill  by  silence,  especially  in 
view  of  the  numerous  meaningless  and  polite  quota- 
tions and  of  other  manifestations  of  fellowship  in 
which  the  writings  of  our  recognized  archaeologists 
abound.  Is  it  because  Morgan  is  an  American,  and 
because  it  is  rather  hard  on  the  English  archaeologists 
to  be  dependent  on  two  talented  foreigners  like 
Bachof en  and  Morgan  for  the  outlines  determining  the 
arrangement  and  grouping  of  their  material,  in  spite 
of  all  praiseworthy  diligence  in  accumulating  material. 
They  could  have  borne  with  the  German,  but  an 
American?  In  face  of  an  American,  every  Englishman 
becomes  patriotic.  I  have  seen  amusing  illustrations 
of  this  fact  in  the  United  States.  Moreover,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  McLennan  was,  so  to  say,  the  official 
founder  and  leader  of  the  English  prehistoric  school. 
It  was  almost  a  requirement  of  good  prehistoric  man- 
ners to  refer  in  terms  of  highest  admiration  to  his 
artificial  construction  of  history  leading  from  infanti- 
cide through  polyandry  and  abduction  to  maternal 
law.  The  least  doubt  in  the  strictly  independent  exist- 
ence of  exogamous  and  endogamous  tribes  was  con- 
sidered a  frivolous  sacrilege.  According  to  this  view, 
Morgan,  In  reducing  all  these  sacred  dogmas  to  thin 
air,  committed  an  act  of  wanton  destruction.  And 
worse  still,  his  mere  manner  of  reducing  them  suf- 
ficed to  show  their  instability,  so  that  the  admirers  of 
McLennan,  who  hitherto  had  been  stumbling  about 
helplessly  between  exogamy  and  endogamy,  were 
almost  forced  to  slap  their  foreheads  and  exclaim: 
"How  silly  of  us,  not  to  have  found  that  out  long  ago!" 

Just  as  if  Morgan  had  not  committed  crimes  enough 
n gainst  the  official  archaeologists  to  justify  them  in 
discarding  all  fair  methods  and  assuming  an  attitude 


26  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

of  cool  neglect,  he  persisted  in  filling  their  cup  to 
overflowing.  Not  only  does  he  criticise  civilization,  the 
society  of  production  for  profit,  the  fundamental  form 
of  human  society,  in  a  manner  savoring  of  Fourier, 
but  he  also  speaks  of  a  future  reorganization  of  society 
in  language  that  Karl  Marx  might  have  used.  Con- 
sequently, he  receives  his  just  deserts,  when  McLen- 
nan indignantly  charges  him  with  a  profound  anti- 
pathy against  historical  methods,  and  when  Professor 
Giraud-Teulon  of  Geneva  endorses  the  same  view  in 
1884.  For  was  not  the  same  Professor  Giraud-Teulon 
still  wandering  about  aimlessly  in  the  maze  of  Mc- 
Lennan's  exogamy  in  1S74  (Origines  de  la  famille)? 
And  was  it  not  Morgan  who  finally  had  to  set  him 
free? 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  in  this  preface  on  the 
other  forms  of  progress  which  primeval  history  owes 
to  Morgan.  Reference  to  them  will  be  found  in  the 
course  of  my  work.  During  the  fourteen  years  that 
have  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  his  main  work, 
the  material  contributing  to  the  history  of  primeval 
society  has  been  considerably  enriched.  Anthropol- 
ogists, travelers  and  professional  historians  were 
joined  by  comparative  jurists  who  added  new  matter 
and  opened  up  new  points  of  view.  Here  and  there, 
some  special  hypothesis  of  Morgan  has  been  shaken  or 
even  become  obsolete.  But  in  no  instance  has  the  new 
material  led  to  a  weakening  of  his  leading  propositions. 
The  order  he  established  in  primeval  history  still  holds 
good  in  its  main  outlines  to  this  day.  We  may  even 
say  that  this  order  receives  recognition  in  the  exact 
degree,  in  which  the  authorship  of  this  great  progress 
is  concealed. 

London,  June  16th,  1891. 

Frederick  Engels. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 


CHAPTER  I. 

PREHISTORIC  STAGES* 

Morgan  was  the  first  to  make  an  attempt  at  intro- 
ducing a  logical  order  into  the  history  of  primeval 
society.  Until  considerably  more  material  is  obtained, 
no  further  changes  will  be  necessary  and  his  arrange- 
ment will  surely  remain  in  force. 

Of  the  three  main  epochs— savag^cy,  barbarism  and 
civilization— naturally  only  the  first  two  and  the  transi- 
tion to  the  third  required  his  attention.  He^ubdivided 
each  of  these  into  a  lower,  middle  and^  higher  stage, 
according  to  the^rd]pesFlh  the^^productipn  of  the 
means  of~susten^ce.  nis  reason  for  doing  so  is  that 
the  degree  of  human  supremacy  over  nature  is  con- 
ditioned on  the  ability  to  produce  the  necessities  of 
life.  For  of  all  living  beings,  man  alone  has  acquired 
an  almost  unlimited  control  over  food  production.  Ail_ 
^XsaJLepochs  of  human  progress,  according  to  Morgan, 
coincide  more  or  lessjlirectly_:nlth— times  of  greater 
abundance  in  the  means  that  sustain  life.  The  evolu- 
tiQn^f_the  family  proceeds  in  the  same  measure  with- 
out, however,  offering  equally  convenient  marks  for 
sub-division. 


I.    SAVAGERY. 

1.  Lower  Stage.  Infancy  of  the  human  race.  Hu- 
man beings  still  dwelt  in  their  original  habitation,  in 
tropical  or  subtropical  forests.  They  lived  at  least 
part  of  the  time  in  trees,  for  only  in  this  way  they 


20  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

could  escape  the  attacks  of  large  beasts  of  prey  and 
survive.  Fruit,  nuts,  and  roots  served  as  food.  The 
formation  of  articulated  speech  is  the  principal  result 
of  this  period.  Not  a  single  one  of  all  the  nations  that 
have  become  known  in  historic  times  dates  back  to 
this  primeval  stage. 

Although  the  latter  may  extend  over  thousands  of 
years,  we  have  no  means  of  proving  its  existence  by 
direct  evidence.  But  once  the  descent  of  man  from  the 
Animal  Kingdom  is  acknowledged,  the  acceptance  of 
this  stage  of  transition  becomes  inevitable. 

2.  Middle  Stage:  Commencing  with  the  utilization 
of  fish  (including  crabs,  mollusks  and  other  aquatic 
animals)  and  the  use  of  fire.  Both  these  things  belong 
together,  because  fish  becomes  thoroughly  palatable 
by  the  help  of  fire  only.  With  this  new  kind  of  food, 
human  beings  became  completely  independent  of  cli- 
mate and  locality.  Following  the  course  of  rivers  and 
coast  lines,  they  could  spread  over  the  greater  part  of 
the  earth  even  in  the  savage  state.  The  so-called 
palaeolithic  implements  of  the  early  stone  age,  made 
of  rough,  unsharpened  stones,  belong  almost  entirely 
to  this  period.  Their  wide  distribution  over  all  the 
continents  testifies  to  the  extent  of  these  wanderings. 
The  unceasing  bent  for  discovery,  together  with  the 
possession  of  fire  gained  by  friction,  created  new 
products  in  the  lately  occupied  regions.  Such  were 
farinaceous  roots  and  tubers,  baked  in  hot  ashes  or  in 
baking  pits  (ground  ovens).  When" the  first  weapons, 
club  and  spear,  were  invented,  venison  was  occasion- 
ally added  to  the  bill  of  fare.  Nations  subsisting 
exclusively  by  hunting,  such  as  we  sometimes  find 
mentioned  in  books,  have  never  existed;  for  the  pro- 
ceeds of  hunting  are  too  uncertain.  In  consequence  of 
continued  precariousness  of  the  sources  of  sustenance, 
cannibalism,  seems  to  arise  at  this  stage.  It  continues 
in  force  for  a  long  while.  Even  in  our  day,  Australians 


PREHISTORIC    STAGES  29 

and  Polynesians  still  remain  in  this  middle  stage  of 
savagery. 

3.  Higher  Stage:  Coming  with  the  invention  of 
bow  and  arrow,  this  stage  makes  venison  a  regular 
part  of  daily  fare  and  hunting  a  normal  occupation. 
Bow,  arrow  and  cord  represent  a  rather  complicated 
instrument,  the  invention  of  which  presupposes  a  long  • 
and  accumulated  experience  and  increased  mental 
ability;  incidentally  they  are  conditioned  on  the  ac- 
quaintance with  a  number  of  other  inventions. 

In  comparing  the  nations  that  are  familiar  with  the 
use  of  bow  and  arrow,  but  not  yet  with  the  art  of 
pottery  (from  which  Morgan  dates  the  transition  to 
barbarism),  we  find  among  them  the  beginnings  of 
village  settlements,  a  control  of  food  production, 
wooden  vessels  and  utensils,  weaving  of  bast  fibre  by 
hand  (without  a  loom),  baskets  made  of  bast  or  reeds, 
and  sharpened  (neolithic)  stone  implements.  Gener- 
ally fire  and  the  stone  ax  have  also  furnished  the 
dugout  and,  here  and  there,  timbers  and  boards  for 
house-building;  All  these  improvements  are  found, 
e.  g.,  among  the  American  Indians  of  the  Northwest, 
who  use  bow  and  arrows,  but  know  nothing  as  yet 
about  pottery.  Bow  and  arrows  were  for  the  stage  of 
savagery  what  the  iron  sword  was  for  barbarism  and 
the  fire-arm  for  civilization;  the  weapon  of  supremacy. 

II.    BARBARISM. 

1.  Lower  Stage.  T^^ff^s  from  the  introduction  of 
the  art  of  pottery.  The  latter  is  traceable  in  many 
«ase8,  and  ppobably  attributable  in  all  cases,  to  the 
custom  of  covering  wooden  or  plaited  vessels  with 
clay  In  order  to  render  them  fire-proof.  It  did  not 
take  long  to  find  out  that  moulded  clay  served  the 
«ame  purpose  without  a  lining  of  other  material. 

Hitherto  we  could  consider  the  course  of  evolution 
as  being  equally  characteristic,  in  a  general  way,  for 


30  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

all  the  nations  of  a  certain  period,  without  reference 
to  locality.  But  with  the  beginning  of  barbarism,  we 
reach  a  stage  where  the  difference  in  the  natural 
resources  of  the  two  great  bodies  of  land  makes  itself 
felt.  The  salient  features  of  this  stage  of  barbarism 
is  the  taming  and  raising  of  animals  and  the  cultiva- 
tion of  plants.  Now  the  eastern  body  of  land,  the  so- 
called  old  world,  contained  nearly  all  the  tamable  ani- 
mals and  all  the  cultivable  species  of  grain  but  one; 
while  the  western  continent,  America,  possessed  only 
one  tamable  mammal,  the  llama  (even  this  only  in  a 
certain  part  of  the  South),  and  only  one,  although  the 
best,  species  of  grain:  the  corn.  From  now  on,  these 
different  conditions  of  nature  lead  the  population  of 
each  hemisphere  along  divergent  roads,  and  the  land- 
marks on  the  boundaries  of  the  various  stages  differ 
In  both  cases. 

2.  Middle  Stage.  Commencing  in  the  East  with  the 
domestication  of  animals,  in  the  West  with  the  culti- 
vation and  irrigation  of  foodplants;  also  with  the  use 
of  adobes  (bricks  baked  in  the  sun)  and  stones  for 
buildings. 

We  begin  In  the  West,  because  there  this  stage  was 
never  outgrown  up  to  the  time  of  the  conquest  by 
Europeans. 

At  the  time  of  their  discovery,  the  Indians  in  the 
lower  stage  of  barbarism  (all  those  living  east  of  the 
Mississippi)  carried  on  cultivation  on  a  small  scale  in 
"gardens.  Com,  and  perhaps  also  pumpkins,  melons 
and  other  garden  truck  were  raised.  A  very  essential 
part  of  their  sustenance  was  produced  in  this  manner. 
They  lived  in  wooden  houses,  in  fortified  villages.  The 
tribes  of  the  Northwest  especially  those  of  the  region 
along  the  Columbia  river,  were  still  in  the  higher  stage 
of  savagery,  ignorant  of  pottery  and  of  any  cultiva- 
tion of  plants  whatever.  But  the  so-called  Pueblo  In- 
dians in  New  Mexico,  the  Mexicans,  Central-Ameri- 


PREHISTORIC    STAGES  31 

cans  and  Peruvians,  were  in  the  middle-stage  of  bar- 
barism. They  lived  in  fortlike  houses  of  adobe  or 
3tone,  cultivated  corn  and  other  plants  suitable  to 
various  conditions  of  localities  and  climate  in  arti- 
ficially irrigated  gardens  that  represented  the  main 
source  of  nourishment,  and  even  kept  a  few  tamed 
animals— the  Mexicans  the  turkey  and  other  birds, 
the  Peruvians  the  llama.  Furthermore  they  were 
familiar  with  the  use  of  metals— iron  excepted,  and 
for  this  reason  they  could  not  get  along  yet  wdthout 
stone  weapons  and  stone  implements.  The  conquest 
by  the  Spaniards  cut  short  all  further  independent 
development. 

In  the  East,  the  middle  stage  of  barbarism  began 
with  the  taming  of  milk  and  meat  producing  animals, 
while  the  cultivation  of  plants  seems  to  have  remained 
unknown  far  into  this  period.  It  appears  that  the 
taming  and  raising  of  animals  and  the  formation  of 
large  herds  gave  rise  to  the  separation  of  Aryans  and 
Semites  from  the  rest  of  the  barbarians.  Names  of 
animals  are  still  common  to  the  languages  of  Euro- 
pean and  Asian  Aryans,  while  this  is  almost  never  the 
case  with  the  names  of  cultivated  plants. 

In  suitable  localities,  the  formation  of  herds  led  to 
a  nomadic  life,  as  with  the  Semites  in  the  grassy  plains 
of  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris,  the  Aryans  in  the  plains 
of  India,  of  the  Oxus,  Jaxartes,  Don  and  Dnieper. 
Along  the  borders  of  such  pasture  lands,  the  taming  of 
animals  must  have  been  accomplished  first.  But  later 
generations  conceived  the  mistaken  idea  that  the 
nomadic  tribes  had  their  origin  in  regions  supposed  to 
be  the  cradle  of  humanity,  while  in  reality  their  sav- 
age ancestors  and  even  people  in  the  lower  stage  of 
barbarism  would  have  found  these  regions  almost 
unfit  for  habitation.  On  the  other  hand,  once  these 
barbarians  of  the  middle  stage  were  accustomed  to 
nomadic  life,  nothing  could  have  induced  them  to 


32  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

return  voluntarily  from  the  grassy  river  plains  to  the 
forests  that  had  been  the  home  of  their  ancestors. 
Even  vp-hen  Semites  and  Aryans  were  forced  further  to 
the  North  and  West,  it  was  impossible  for  them  to 
occupy  the  forest  regions  of  Western  Asia  and  Europe, 
until  they  were  enabled  by  agriculture  to  feed  their 
animals  on  this  less  favorable  soil  and  especially  to 
maintain  them  during  the  winter.  It  is  more  than 
probable  that  the  cultivation  of  grain  was  due  pri- 
marily to  the  demand  for  stock  feed,  and  became  an 
Important  factor  of  human  sustenance  at  a  later 
period. 

Th^__superior_development_of  Ar^  and  Semites 
l6_;_j^rha^s^ attributable  to  the  copious  meat  and  milk 
diet  jQf.^th  j-aces,  more  especially  to  the_favorable 
Influence  of  such  food  on  the  growth  of~chIIdren.  As 
a  paatter  of^fact.  tJie-PAieblQ"lndiflns  of  New  Mexico 
who  live  on3n_almost^urely  vegetarian  diet,  have  a 
smaller  braln^han~the  Indians]H~the^lower  stage  of 
barbarism  who^atjmore  meaFand  fish.  At  any  rate, 
cannibalism  gradually  disappears  aTthis  stage  and  is 
maintained  only  as  a  religious  observance  or,  what  is 
here  nearly  identical,  as  a  magic  remedy.* 

3.  Higher  Stage.  Beginning  with  the  melting  of 
iron  ore  and  merging  into  civilization  by  the  inven- 


Translator's  note. 

♦Advocates  of  vegetarianism  may,  of  course,  challenge 
this  statement  and  show  that  all  the  testimony  of  anthropol- 
ogy is  not  in  favor  of  the  meat-eaters.  It  must  also  be  ad- 
mitted that  diet  is  not  the  only  essential  factor  in  environ- 
ment which  influences  the  development  of  races.  And  there 
Is  no  conclusive  evidence  to  prove  the  absolute  superiority 
of  one  diet  over  another.  Neither  have  we  any  proofs  that 
cannibalism  ever  was  in  general  practice.  It  rather  seems 
to  have  been  confined  to  limited  groups  of  people  in  especial- 
ly ill-favored  localities  or  to  times  of  great  scarcity  of  food. 
Hence  we  can  neither  refer  to  cannibalism  as  a  typical  stage 
in  human  history,  nor  are  we  obliged  to  accept  the  vege- 
tarian hypothesis  of  a  transition  from  a  meat  diet  to  a  plant 
diet  as  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  higher  human  develop- 
ment. 


PREHISTORIC    STAGES  33 

tioA  of  letter  script  and  its  utilization  for  •writing 
records.  This  stage  which  is  passed  independently 
only  on  the  Eastern  Hemisphere,  is  richer  in  improve- 
ments of  production  than  all  preceding  stages  to- 
gether. It  is  the  stage  of  the  Greek  heroes,  the 
Italian  tribes  shortly  before  the  foundation  of  Rome, 
the  Germans  of  Tacitus,  the  Norsemen  of  the  Viking 
age. 

We  are  here  confronted  for  the  first  time  with  the 
iron  ploughshare  drawn  by  animals,  rendering  possi- 
ble agriculture  on  a  large  scale,  in  fields,  and  hence 
a  practically  unlimited  increase  in  the  production  of 
food  for  the  time  being.  The  next  consequence  is 
the  clearing  of  forests  and  their  ti*ansformation  into 
arable  land  and  meadows — which  process,  however, 
could  not  be  continued  on  a  larger  §cale  without  the 
help  of  the  iron  ax  and  the  iron  spade.  Naturally, 
these  improvements  brought  a  more  rapid  increase  of 
population  and  a  concentration  of  numbers  into  a 
small  area.  Before  the  time  of  field  cultivation  a  com- 
bination of  half  a  million  of  people  under  one  central 
management  could  have  been  possible  only  under  ex- 
ceptionably  favorable  conditions;  most  likely  this  was 
never  the  case. 

The  greatest  attainments  of  the  higher  stage  of  bar- 
barism are  presented  in  Homer's  poems,  especially  in 
the  Iliad.  Improved  iron  tools;  the  bellows;  the  hand- 
mill;  the  potter's  wheel;  the  preparation  of  oil  and 
vrine;  a  well  developed  fashioning  of  metals  verging 
on  artisanshlp;  the  wagon  and  chariot;  ship-building 
with  beams  and  boards;  the  beginning  of  artistic  archi- 
tecture; towns  surrounded  by  walls  with  turrets  and 
battlements;  the  Homeric  epos  and  the  entire  myth- 
ology—these are  the  principal  bequests  transmitted 
by  the  Greeks  from  barbarism  to  civilization.  In  com- 
paring these  attainments  with  the  description  given 
by  Cesar  or  even  Tacitus  of  Germans,  who  were  in 


34  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

the  beginning  of  the  same  stage  of  evolution  which 
the  Greeks  were  preparing  to  leave  for  a  higher  one. 
we  perceive  the  wealth  of  productive  development 
comprised  in  the  higher  stage  of  barbarism. 

The  sketch  which  I  have  here  produced  after  Morgan 
of  the  evolution  of  the  human  race  through  savagery 
and  barbarism  to  the  beginning  of  civilization  is  even 
now  rich  in  new  outlines.  More  still,  these  outlines  are 
incontrovertible,  because  traced  directly  from  produc- 
tion. Nevertheless,  this  sketch  will  appear  faint  and 
meagre  in  comparison  to  the  panorama  unrolled  to  our 
view  at  the  end  of  our  pilgrimage.  Not  until  then  will 
it  be  possible  to  show  in  their  true  light  both  the 
transition  from  barbarianism  to  civilization  and  the 
striking  contrast  between  them.  Fgr  the  prpspTi±_£re 
can  summarize  Morgnn's  arrangement  in  theJoUpw- 
ing^  maimer:  Savagery— time  ofpredominatmg  appro- 
priation_of^nished^atural  products;  human  ingenuity 
liiyents~mainly  tools_usef  ul  in  assisting  this  appropria- 
tion. Barbarism— time  of  acquiring  the  knowledge 
of  cattle_raising,_^-  a gn culture  and  of  new  methods 
forHncreasing  the  productivity  of  nature  bv  human 
agency.  Civilization:  tiine-of-leaming-a^:wider_utiliza- 
tion^f„Dat]iral  prod  nets,  _a£--jaamifacturiDg  and  of 
art. 


CHAPTER  !!• 

THE  FAMILY. 

Morgan,  who  spent  the  greater  part  of  his  life  among 
the  Iroquois  in  the  State  of  New  York  and  who  had 
been  adopted  into  one  of  their  tribes,  the  Senecas, 
found  among  them  a  system  of  relationsliip  that  was 
in  contradiction  with  their  actual  family  relations. 
Among  them  existed  what  Morgan  terms  the  syndyas- 
mian  or  pairing  family,  a  monogamous  state  easily 
dissolved  by  either  side.  The  offspring  of  such  a 
couple  was  identified  and  acknowledged  by  all  the 
world.  There  could  be  no  doubt  to  whom  to  apply  the 
terms  father,  mother,  son,  daughter,  brother,  sister. 
But  the  actual  use  of  these  words  was  not  in  keeping 
with  their  fundamental  meaning.  For  the  Iroquois 
addresses  as  sons  and  daughters  not  only  his  owH 
children,  but  also-tfrogg  of  faiy  brothers;  and  he  is 
called  father  by  all  of  themT "TBut  the  children  of  his 
sTsteTfg-tre-ealls  nephews  and  nieces,  and  they  call  him 
uncle,  ^icp  vprsa,  an  Iroquois  woman  calls  her  own 
'children-  as-well  as  tiioseof  her  sisters  spns,and  daugh- 
ters aiid  is.  addressed_as_ mother  by  them.  But  the 
children  of  her  brothers  ^are  caTTed  nephews  and 
nieces,  and  they  call  her  aunt.  In  the  same  way,  the 
children  of  brothers  call  one  another  brothers  and  sis- 
ters, and  so  do  the  children  of  sisters.  But  the  chil- 
dren of  a  sister  call  those  of  her  brother  cousins,  and 
vice  versa.  And  these  are  not  simply^meaningLess 
terms.  bjt_^xpiiea&iiiiis~Jj£--acluaIIy  existing  cqncep- 
tions  ofproximity_and  remoteness,  equality  or  Inequal- 
ity._of_^nsanguinity.  ~~ 

These  conceptions  serve  as  the  fundament  of  a  per- 
fectly elaborated  system  of  relationship,  capable  of 


36  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

expressing  several  hundred  different  relations  of  a 
single  individual.  More  still,  this  system  is  not  only 
fully  accepted  by  ail  American  Indians— no  exception 
has  been  found  so  far— but  it  is  also  in  use  Tvith  hardly 
any  modifications  among  the  original  inhabitants  of 
India,  among  the  Dravidian  tribes  of  the  Dekan  and 
the  Gaura  tribes  of  Hindostan. 

The  terms  of  relationship  used  by  the  Tamhs  ot 
Southern  India  and  by  the  Seneca-Iroquois  of  New 
York  State  are  to  this  day  identical  for  more  thai? 
two  hundred  different  family  relations.  Ana  among 
these  East  Indian  tribes  also,  as  among  all  American 
Indians,  the  relations  arising  out  of  the  prevailing 
form  of  the  family  are  not  in  keeping  with  the  system 
of  kinship. 

How  can  this  be  explained?  In  view  of  the  import- 
ant role  played  by  kinship  In  the  social  order  of  all  the 
savage  and  barbarian  races,  the  significance  of  such  a 
widespread  system  cannot  be  obliterated  by  phrases. 

A  system  that  is  generally  accepted  in  America,  that 
also  exists  in  Asia  among  people  of  entirely  different 
races,  that  is  frequently  found  in  a  more  or  less  modi- 
fied form  all  over  Africa  and  Australia,  such  a  system 
requires  a  historical  explanation  and  cannot  be  talked 
down,  as  was  attempted,  e.  g.,  by  McLennan.  The 
terms  father,  child,  brother,  sister  are  more  than  mere 
honorary  titles;  they  carry  in  their  wake  certain  well- 
defined  and  very  serious  obligations,  the  aggregate  of 
which  comprises  a  very  essential  part  of  the  social 
constitution  of  those  nations.  And  the  explanation 
was  found.  In  the  Sandwich  Islands  (Hawaii)  there 
existed  up  to  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century 
a  family  form  producing  just  such  fathers  and  moth- 
ers, brothers  and  sisters,  uncles  and  aunts,  nephews 
and  nieces,  as  the  old  Indo-American  system  of  kin- 
ship. But  how  remarkable!  The  Hawaiian  system 
of  kinship  again  did  not  agree  with  the  family  form 


THE  FAMILY  37 

actually  prevailing  there.  For  there  all  the  children 
of  brothers  and  sisters,  without  any  exception,  are 
considered  brothers  and  sisters,  and  regarded  as  the 
common  children  not  only  of  their  mother  or  her  sis- 
ters, or  their  father  and  his  brothers,  but  of  all  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  their  parents  without  distinc- 
tion. While  thus  the  American  system  of  kinship 
presupposes  an  obsolete  primitive  form  of  the  family, 
which  is  still  actually  existing  in  Hawaii,  the  Ha- 
waiian system  on  the  other  hand  points  to  a  still  more 
primitive  form  of  the  family,  the  actual  existence  of 
which  cannot  be  proved  any  more,  but  which  must 
have  existed,  because  otherwise  such  a  system  of 
kinship  could  not  have  arisen.  According  to  Morgan, 
the  family  is  the  active  element;  If  is  never  stationary. 


but  m  progressron_from_a  lower  to  a  higher  form  In 
the~same  measure~in  ^^hich~society'?evelops  from  a 
lower  to  a  higher  stage.  But_tha_systems  of  liinship  \ 
are  pa^ive!  Only  in  long  intervals  they  register  the 
progress  made  by  the  family  in  course  of  time,  and 
only  then  are  they  radically  <!hanged,  when  the  family 
has  done  so.  "And,"  adds  Marx,  "it  is  the  same  with 
political,  juridical,  religious  and  philosophical  sys- 
tems in  general."  Whjle_thejfamily  keeps  on  growing, 
the  system  of  kinsliip  becomes  ossified.  The  latter 
COTttnues  in  ttriFstafe  and  t&e  family  grows  beyond  it. 
With  the  same  certainty  which  enabled  Cuvier  to 
conclude  from  some  bonos  of  Marsupialia  found  near 
Paris  that  extinct  marsupialia  had  lived  there,  with 
this  same  certainty  may  we  conclude  from  a  system 
of  kinship  transmitted  by  history  that  the  extinct 
form  of  the  family  corresponding  to  this  system  was 
oncG  in  existence. 

The  systems  of  kinship  and  forms  of  the  family  just 
mentioned  differ  from  the  present  systems  in  that 
every  child  has  several  fathers  and  mothers.  Under 
the  American  system  to  which  the  Hawaiian  system 


38  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

corresponds,  brother  and  sister  cannot  be  father  and 
mother  of  the  same  child;  but  the  Ha\raiian  system 
presupposes  a  family,  in  which,  on  the  contrary,  this 
was  the  rule.  We  are  here  confronted  by  a  series  ot 
family  forms  that  are  in  direct  contradiction  with  those 
that  were  currently  regarded  as  alone  prevailing.  The 
conventional  conception  knows  only  monogamy,  fur- 
thermore polygamy  of  one  man,  eventually  also  poly- 
andry of  one  woman.  But  it  passes  in  silence,  as  is 
meet  for  a  moralizing  philistine,  that  the  practice 
silently  but  without  compunction  supersedes  these 
barriers  sanctioned  officially  by  society.  The  study  of 
^imeval  history,  however,  shows  us^  conditions,  where 
men  practrced  polygamy  and  women  at  the^same  time 
polyandry,  so  that  their  children  were  considered  com- 
mon to  all;  conditionsjthat  up  totheir  final  transition 
hiLu  moil ugamyunderwentT~w hole  series^of  modifica- 
tions. These  modifications  slowly  and  gradually  con- 
tract the  circle  comprised  by  the  common  tie  of  mar- 
riage until  only  the  single  couple  remains  wnich  pre- 
vails to-day. 

In  thus  constructing  backward  the  history  of  the 
family,  Morgan,  in  harmony  with  the  majority  of  his 
colleagues,  arrives  at  a  primeval  condition,  where  un- 
restricted sexual  intercourse  existed  within  a  tribe, 
~so^Tiat  every  woman  belonged  to  every  man,  and  vice 
versa. 

^~3ruch  has  been  said  about  this  primeval  state  of 
affairs  since  the  eighteenth  century,  but  only  In  gen- 
eral commonplaces.  It  is  one  of  Bachofen's  great 
merits  to  have  taken  the  subject  seriously  and  to  have 
searched  for  traces  of  this  state  in  historical  and  re- 
ligious traditions.  To-day  we  know  that  these  traces, 
found  by  him,  do  not  lead  back  to  a  stage  of  unlimited 
sexual  intercourse,  but  to  a  much  later  form,  the  group 
marriage.  The  primeval  stage,  if  it  really  ever  existed, 
belongs  to  so  remote  a  period,  that  we  can  hardly 


THE  FAMILY  3$ 

expect  to  find  direct  proofs  of  its  former  existence 
among  these  social  fossils,  backward  savages.  Bach- 
ofen's  merit  consists  in  having  brought  this  question  to 
the  fore.* 

It  has  lately  become  a  fashion  to  deny  the  existence 
of  this  early  stage  of  human  sex  life,  in  order  to  spare 
us  this  "shame."  Apart  from  the  absence  of  all  direct 
proof,  the  example  of  the  rest  of  animal  life  is  in- 
volved. From  the  latter,  Letourneau  (Evolution  du 
mariage  et  de  la  famille,  ISSS)  quoted  numerous  facts, 
alleged  to  prove  that  among  animals  also  an  absolutely 
Unlimited  sexual  intercourse  belongs  to  a  lower  stage. 
But  I  can  only  conclude  from  all  these  facts  that  they 
prove  absolutely  nothing  for  man  and  the  primeval 
conditions  of  his  life.  The  mating  of  vertebrates  for 
a  lengthy  term  is  sufficiently  explained  by  physi- 
ological causes,  e.  g.,  among  birds  by  the  helplessness 
of  the  female  during  brooding  time.  Examples  of 
faithful  monogamy  among  birds  do  not  furnish  any 
proofs  for  men,  for  we  are  not  descended  from  birds. 

And  if  strict  monogamy  is  the  height  of  virtue,  then 
the  palm  belongs  to  the  tapeworm  that  carries  a  com- 
plete male  and  female  sexual  apparatus  in  each  of  its 
50  to  200  sections  and  passes  its  whole  lifetime  in  fer- 
tilizing itself  in  every  one  of  its  sections.  But  if  we 
confine  ourselves  to  mammals,  we  find  all  forms  of 
sexual  intercourse,  license,  suggestions  of  group  mar- 
Author's  note. 

♦How  little  Bachofen  understood  what  he  had  discovered, 
or  rather  guessed,  is  proved  by  the  term  "hetaerism,"  which 
he  applies  to  this  primeval  stage.  Hetaerism  designated 
among  the  Greeks  an  intercourse  of  men,  single  or  living  In 
monogamy,  with  unmarried  women.  It  always  presupposes 
the  existence  of  a  well  defined  form  of  marriage,  outside  of 
which  this  intercourse  takes  place,  and  includes  the  possi- 
bility of  prostitution.  In  another  sense  this  word  was  never 
used,  and  I  use  it  in  this  sense  with  Morgan.  Bachofen's 
very  important  discoveries  are  everywhere  mystified  in  the 
extreme  by  his  idea  that  the  historical  relations  of  man  and 
wife  have  their  source  in  the  religious  conceptions  of  a  cer- 
tain period,  not  in  the  economic  conditions  of  life. 


40  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

riage,  polygamy  and  monogamy.  Only  polyandry  Is 
missing;*  that  could  be  accomplished  by  men  only. 
Even  our  next  relations,  the  quadrumana,  exhibit  all 
possible  differences  in  the  grouping  of  males  and 
females.  And  if  we  draw  the  line  still  closer  and  con- 
sider only  the  four  anthropoid  apes,  Letoumeau  can 
only  tell  us,  that  they  are  now  monogamous,  now 
polygamous;  while  Saussure  contends  according  to 
Giraud-Teulon  that  they  are  monogamous.  The  recent 
contentions  of  Westermarck*  in  regard  to  monogamy 
among  anthropoid  apes  are  far  from  proving  anything. 
In  short,  the  Information  is  such  that  honest  Letour- 
neau_admitsi__l'Tliere..  exists  no  strict_relation  at  all 
l)efween  the  degree  of  intellectual  development  and 
the  form  of  sexual  intercourse  among,  mammals." 
ilbad'Espinas  says  frankly  i*  "The  herd  is  the  highest 
eocial  group  found  among  animals.  It  seems  to  be 
composed  of  families,  but  from  the  outset  the  family 
and  the  herd  are  antagonistic;  they  develop  in  directly 
opposite  ratio." 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  that  we  know  next  to 
nothing  of  the  family  and  other  social  groups  of 
anthropoid  apes;  the  reports  are  directly  contradictory. 
How  full  of  contradiction,  how  much  in  need  of 
critical  scrutiny  and  research  are  the  reports  even  on 
savage  human  tribes!  But  monkey  tribes  are  far 
more  difficult  to  observe  than  human  tribes.  For  the 
present,  therefore,  we  must  decline  all  final  conclu- 
sions from  such  absolutely  unreliable  reports. 


Translator's  note. 

•The  female  of  the  European  cnckoo  (cuculus  canorns) 
keeps  Intercourse  with  several  males  in  different  districts 
during  the  same  season.  Still,  this  is  far  from  the  human 
polyandry,  in  which  the  men  and  one  women  all  live  to- 
gether in  the  same  place,  the  men  mutually  tolerating  one 
another,  which  male  cuckoos  do  not. 

♦Westermarck,  The  History  of  Human  Marriage,  London, 
1S91. 

•Espinas,  Des  Socletes  Animales,  1877. 


THE  FAMILY  41 

The  quotation  from  Espinas,  however,  offers  a  bet- 
ter clue.  Among  higher  animals,  the  herd  and  family 
are  not  supplements  of  one  another,  but  antitheses. 
Espinas  demonstrates  very  nicely,  how  the  jealousy 
of  the  males  loosens  or  temporarily  dissolves  every 
herd  during  mating  time.  "Where  the  family  is 
closely  organized,  herds  are  formed  only  in  exceptional 
cases.  But  wherever  free  sexual  intercourse  or  polyg- 
amy are  existing,  the  herd  appears  almost  spontane-  y 
ously.  .  .  .  In  order  that  a  herd  may  form,  family  }/y 
ties  must  be  loosened  and  the  individual  be  free.  For 
this  reason  we  so  rarely  find  organized  herds  among 
birds.  .  .  .  Among  mammals,  however,  we  find 
groups  organized  after  a  fashion,  just  because  here  the 
Individual  is  not  merged  in  the  family.  .  .  .  The 
rising  sense  of  cohesion  in  a  herd  cannot,  therefore, 
have  a  greater  enemy  than  the  consciousness  of  fam- 
ily ties.  Let  us  not  shrink  from  pronouncing  it:  the 
development  of  a  higher  form  of  society  than  the 
family  can  be  due  only  to  the  fact  that  it  admitted 
families  which  had  undergone  a  thorough  change. 
This  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  that  these  same 
families  were  thus  enabled  to  reorganize  later  on  un- 
der infinitely  more  favorable  circumstances."* 

It  becomes  apparent  from  this,  that  animal  societies 
may  indeed  have  a  certain  value  in  drawing  con- 
clusions in  regard  to  human  life— but  only  negatively. 
The  higher  vertebrate  knows,  so  far  as  we  may  ascer- ' 
tain,  only  two  forms  of  the  family:  polygamy  or  pairs. 
In  both  of  them  there  is  only  one  grown  male,  only 
one  husband.  The  jealousy  of  the  male,  at  the  same 
time  tie  and  limit  of  the  family,  creates  an  opposition 
between  the  animal  family  and  the  herd.  The  latter, 
a  higher  social  form,  is  here  rendered  impossible,  there 
loosened   or  dissolved   during   mating  time,   and   at 


♦Espinas,    1.    c,  quoted    by    Giraud-Teulon,    Origlnes    du 
mariage  et  de  la  famiUe,  1884,  p.  518-20. 


4^  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

best  hindered  in  its  development  by  the  jealousy  or 
the  male.  This  in  itself  is  sufficient  proof  that  the 
animal  family  and  primeval  human  society  are  irre- 
concilable; that  ancient  man,  struggling  upward  from 
the  animal  stage,  either  had  no  family  at  all  or  at  the 
most  one  that  does  not  exist  among  animals.  A  being 
so  defenceless  as  evolving  man  might  well  survive 
in  small  numbers  though  living  in  an  isolated  state, 
the  highest  social  form  of  which  is  that  of  pairs  such 
as  Westermarck,  relying  on  hunter's  reports,  attrib- 
utes to  the  gorilla  and  the  chimpanzee.  Another  ele- 
ment is  necessary  for  the  elevation  out  of  the  animal 
stage,  for  the  realization  of  the  highest  progress  found 
in  nature:  the  replacing  of  the  defencelessness  of  the 
single  individual  by  the  united  strength  and  co-opera- 
tion of  the  whole  herd.  The  transition  from  beast  to 
man  out  of  conditions  of  the  sort  under  which  the 
anthropoid  apes  are  living  to-day  would  be  abso- 
lutely unexplainable.  These  apes  rather  give  the  im- 
pression of  stray  sidelines  gradually  approaching 
extinction,  and  at  all  events  in  process  of  decline. 
This  alone  is  sufficient  to  reject  all  parallels  between 
their  family  forms  and  those  of  primeval  man.  But 
mutual  tolerance  of  the  grown  males,  freedom  from 
jealousy,  was  the  first  condition  for  the  formation  of 
such  large  and  permanent  groups,  within  which  alone 
the  transformation  from  beast  to  man  could  be  accom- 
plished. And  indeed,  what  do  we  find  to  be  the  most 
ancient  and  original  form  of  the  family,  undeniably 
traceable  by  history  and  even  found  to-day  here  and 
there?  The  group  marriage,  that  form  in  which  whole 
groups  of  men  and  whole  groups  of  women  mutually 
belong  to  one  another,  leaving  only  small  scope  for 
jealousy.  And  furthermore  we  find  at  a  later  stage 
the  exceptional  form  of  polyandry  which  still  more 
supersedes  all  sentiments  of  jealousy  and  hence  is 
unknown  to  animals. 


THE  FAMILY  43 

But  all  the  forms  of  the  group  marriage  known  to 
us  are  accompanied  by  such  peculiarly  complicated 
circumstances  that  they  of  necessity  point  to  a  preced- 
ing simpler  form  of  sexual  intercourse  and,  hence,  in 
the  last  instance  to  a  period  of  unrestricted  sexual 
intercourse  corresponding  to  a  transition  from  the 
animal  to  man.  Therefore  the  references  to  animal 
marriages  lead  us  back  to  precisely  that  point,  from 
which  they  were  intended  to  remove  us  forever. 

What  does  the  term  "unrestricted  sexual  inter- 
course" mean?  Simply,  that  the  restrictions  in  force 
now  were  not  observed  formerly.  We  have  already 
seen  the  barrier  of  jealousy  falling,  if  anytHng  is" 
certa'm,  It  is  that  jealousy  is  developed  at  a  com- 
paratively late  stage.  The  same  is  true  of  incest.  Not 
only  brother  and  sister  were  originally  man  and  wife, 
but  also  the  sexual  intercourse  between  parents  and 
children  is  permitted  to  this  day  among  many  nations. 
Bancroft  testifies  to  the  truth  of  this  among  the 
Kaviats  of  the  Behring  Strait,  the  Kadiaks  of  Alaska, 
the  Tinnehs  in  the  interior  of  British  North  America; 
Letom-neau  compiled  reports  of  the  same  fact  in  re- 
gard to  the  Chippeway  Indians,  the  Coocoos  in  Chile, 
the  Caribeans,  the  Carens  in  Indo-China,  not  to  men- 
tion the  tales  of  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  about  the 
Parthians,  Persians,  Scythians,  Huns  and  so  forth. 
Before  incest  was  invented  (and  it  is  an  invention,  a 
really  valuable  one  indeed),  sexual  intercourse  be- 
tween parents  and  children  could  not  be  any  more 
repulsive  than  between  other  persons  belonging  to 
different  generations,  which  takes  place  even  in  our 
day  among  the  most  narrow-minded  nations  without 
causing  any  horror.  Even  old  "maids"  of  more  than 
sixty  years  sometimes,  if  they  are  rich  enough,  marry 
young  men  of  about  thirty.  Eliminating  from  the 
primeval  forms  of  the  family  known  to  us  those  con- 
ceptions of  incest — conceptions  totally  different  from 


44  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

ours  and  often  enough  in  direct  contradiction  with 
them— we  arrive  at  a  form  of  sexual  intercourse  that 
can  only  be  designated  as  unrestricted.  Unrestricted 
in  the  sense  that  the  barriers  drawn  later  on  by  cus- 
tom did  not  yet  exist.  This  in  no  way  necessarily  im- 
plies for  practical  purposes  an  injudicious  pell-mell 
intercourse.  The  separate  existence  of  pairs  for  a 
limited  time  is  not  out  of  the  question,  and  even  com- 
prises the  majority  of  cases  in  the  group  marriage  of 
our  days.  And  if  the  latest  repudiator  of  such  a 
primeval  state,  Westermarck,  designates  as  marriage 
every  case,  where  both  sexes  remain  mated  until  the 
birth  of  the  offspring,  then  this  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  this  kind  of  marriage  may  w^ell  exist  during  a 
stage  of  unrestricted  intercourse  without  contradicting 
license,  i.  e.,  absence  of  barriers  drawn  by  custom  for 
sexual  intercourse,  Westermarck  bases  himself  on  the 
opinion  that  "license  includes  the  suppression  of  indi- 
vidual affections"  so  that  "prostitution  is  its  most 
genuine  form."  To  me  it  rather  seems  that  any  under- 
standing of  primeval  conditions  is  impossible  as  long 
as  we  look  at  them  through  brothel  spectacles.  We 
shall  return  to  this  point  in  the  group  marriage. 

According  to  Morgan,  the  following  forms  developed 
from  this  primeval  state  at  an  apparently  early  stage: 

1.    THE  CONSANGUINE   FAMILY. 

The  Conganguine_Familv  is  the  first  step  toward  the 
fa'mtl^'.  ^Hei'e  the  niarriage  groups_.are-arranged  by 
generations:  all  the  grand-fathers  and  grand-mothers 
T\nt"BTir  a  certain  famiJyLare.  mutually  husbands  and 

^^^^^5^3^51??^^^^^ J-^^^--^^^^^^'  the. fathers  and 
mothers,  whose  children  form  a  third  cycle  of  mutual 
mates.  The  children  of  these  again,  the  ^eat-grand- 
children  of  the  first  cycle,  will  form  a  fourth.  In  this 
form  of  the  family,  then,  only  ancestors  and  descen- 
dants are  excluded  from  what  we  would  call  the 


THE  FAMILY  45 

rights  and  duties  of  marriage.  Brothers  and  sisters, 
male  and  female  cousins  of  the  first,  second  and  more 
remote  grades,  are  all  mutually  brothers  and  sisters 
and  for  this  reason  mutual  husbands  and  wives.  The 
relation  of  brother  and  sister  quite  naturally  includes 
at  this  stage  the  practice  of  sexual  intercourse.* 

The  typical  form  of  such  a  family  would  consist  of 
the  offspring  of  one  pair,  representing  again  the  de- 
scendants of  each  grade  as  mutual  brothers  and  sisters 
and,  therefore,  mutual  husbands  and  wives.  The 
consanguine  family  is  extinct.  Even  the  crudest  na- 
tions of  history  do  not  furnish  any  proofs  of  it.  But 
the  Hawaiian  system  of  kinship,  in  force  to  this  day  in 


♦Author's  note.  In  the  spring  of  1882,  Marx  expressed  him- 
self in  the  strongest  terms  on  the  total  misrepresentation  of 
primeval  times  by  Wagner's  Nibelungen  text:  "Who  ever 
primeval  times  by  Wagner's  Nibelungen  text:  "Whoever 
heard  of  a  brother  embracing  his  sister  as  a  bride  V"  To 
these  lascivious  Wagnerian  gods  who  in  truly  modern  style 
are  rendering  their  love  quarrels  more  spicy  by  a  little 
Incest,  Marx  replies:  "In  primeval  times  the  sister  was  the 
wife  and  that  was  moral.  (To  the  fourth  edition.)  A  French 
friend  and  admirer  of  Wagner  does  not  consent  to  this  foot 
note,  and  remarks  that  even  in  the  Oegisdrecka,  the  more 
ancient  Edda  on  which  Wagner  built,  Loki  denounces  Freya: 
"Before  the  gods  you  embraced  your  own  brother."  This, 
he  says,  proves  that  marriage  between  brother  and  sister 
was  interdicted  even  then.  But  the  Oegisdrecka  is  the  ex- 
pression of  a  time  when  the  belief  in  the  old  myths  was 
totally  shaken;  it  is  a  truly  Lucian  satire  on  the  gods.  If 
Loki  as  Mephisto  denounces  Freya  in  this  manner,  then  it 
Is  rather  a  point  against  Wagner.  Loki  also  says,  a  few 
verses  further  on,  to  Niordhr:  "With  your  sister  you  gen- 
erated (such)  a  son"  (vidh  systur  thinni  gatzu  slikan  mog"). 
Niordhr  is  not  an  Asa,  but  a  Vana,  and  says  in  the  Ynglinga 
Saga  that  marriages  between  brothers  and  sisters  are  sanc- 
tioned in  Vanaland,  which  is  not  the  case  among  the  Asas. 
This  would  indicate  that  the  Vanas  are  older  gods  than  the 
Asas.  At  any  rate  Niordhr  lived  on  equal  terms  with  the 
Asas,  and  the  Oegisdrecka  is  thus  rather  a  proof  that  at 
the  time  of  the  origin  of  the  Norwegian  mythology  the  mar- 
riage of  brother  and  sister  was  not  yet  repulsive,  at  least 
not  to  the  gods.  In  trying  to  excuse  Wagner  it  might  be 
better  to  quote  Goethe  instead  of  the  Edda.  This  poet  com- 
mits a  similar  error  in  his  ballad  of  the  god  and  the  bajadere 
in  regard  to  the  religious  surrender  of  women  and  approaches 
modern  prostitution  far  too  closely. 


46  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

all  Polynesia,  compels  us  to  acknowledge  its  former 
existence,  for  it  exhibits  grades  of  liinsbip  that  could 
only  originate  in  this  form  of  the  family.     And  the 
whole  subsequent  development  of  the  family  com-  . 
pels  us  to  admit  this  form  as  a  necessary  step. 

2.    THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY. 

While  the  first  step  of  organization   consisted   in 
excluding    parents    and  children   from    mutual   sex-  / 
ual     intercourse,     the     second     wag^.the     erection/y 

^  of  a  barrier  between  'trrotftgf'^'^^^n^ .  sister.  ThisV 
progress  waF"Tnucli  more  important  on  account  of 
the  greater  equality  in  the  ages  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned, but  also  far  more  difficult.  _Jt  was  accota- 
plished  ..gradually,  proba.bly  beginning  with  the  ex- 
cTusion  of  the" natural  sister  (r.'e'.,'birthe  mother's  side) 

"^~om  sexual  intercourse,  first  in  single  cases,  then  be- 
coming more^and  mor£_tliej.Tile  (in  Hawaii  exceptions 

"~wer'e  "still,  noted  during  the  nineteenth  century),  and 
finally  ending  with  the  prohibition  of  marriage  even 
among  collateral  brothers  and  sisters,  i.  e.,  what  we 
now  term  brother's  and  sister*s  children,  grandchil- 
dren, and  great-grandchildren.  This  progress  offers, 
according  to  Morgan,  an  excellent  illustration  how  the 
principle  of  natural  selection  works.  Without  ques-  / 
tion,  the  tribes  limiting  inbreeding  by  this  progress/^ 
developed  faster  and  more  completely  than  those' 
retaining  the  man'iage  between  brothers  and  sisters  as 
a  rule  and  law.  And  how  powerfully  the  influence  of 
this  progress  was  felt,  is  shown  by  the  institution  of 
the  gens,  directly  attributable  to  it  and  passing  far 
beyond  the  goal.  The  gens  is  the  foundation  of  the 
social  order  of  most,  if  not  all,  barbarian  nations,  and  - 
in  Greece  and  Rome  we  step  immediately  from  it  to 
civilization. 

Every  primeval   family  necessarily  had  to  divide 
after  a  few  generations.    The  originally  communistic 


THE  FAMILY  47 

and  collective  household  existing  far  into  the  middle 
stage  of  barbarism,  involved  a  certain  maximum  size 
of  the  family,  variable  according  to  conditions,  but 
still  limited  in  a  degree.  As  soon  as  the  conception  of 
the  impropriety  of  sexual  intercourse  between  chil- 
dren of  the  same  mother  arose,  it  naturally  became 
effective  on  such  occasions  as  the  division  of  old  and 
the  foundation  of  new  household  communities  (which, 
however,  did  not  necessarily  coincide  with  the  family 
group).  One  or  more  series  of  sisters  became  the  cen- 
ter of  one  group,  their  natural  brothers  that  of  an- 
other. In  this  or  a  similar  manner  that  form  which 
Morgan  styles  the  Punaluan  family  developed  from 
the  consanguine  family.  According  to  Hawaiian  cus- 
tom, a  number  of  sisters,  natural  or  more  remote  (i.  e., 
cousins  of  the  first,  second  and  more  remote  degrees) 
were  the  mutual  wives  of  their  mutual  husbands,  their 
natural  brothers  excepted.  These  men  now  no  longer 
addressed  one  another  as  "brother"— which  they  no 
longer  had  to  be— but  as  "Punalua,"  i.  e.,  intimate  com- 
panion, associate  as  it  were.  Likewise  a  series  of 
natural  or  more  remote  brothers  lived  in  mutual  mar- 
riage with  a  number  of  women,  not  their  natural  sis- 
ters, and  these  women  referred  to  each  other  as 
"Punalua."  This  is  the  classical  form  of  a  family, 
which  later  admitted  of  certain  variations.  Its  funda- 
mental characteristic  was  mutual  community  of  hus- 
bands and  wives  within  a  given  family  with  the 
exclusion  of  the  natural  brothers  (or  sisters)  first,  and 
of  the  more  remote  grades  later. 

Tjiis  form  of  the  family,  now,  furnishes  with  com- 
plete  accuracy  the  degrees  of  kinship  expressed  5y 
•ttre-Am&rlcan  system:  The  children  of  the  sisters  of 
■  my  mother  still  are  her  children;  likewise  the  children 
of  the  brothers  of  my  father  still  his  children;  and  all 
of  them  are  my  brothers  and  sisters.  But  the  children 
of  the  brothers  of  my  mother  are  now  her  nephews 


48  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

and  nieces,  the  children  of  the  sisters  of  my  father 
his  nephew  and  nieces,  and  they  are  ail  my  cousins. 
For  while  the  husbands  of  the  sisters  of  my  mother 
are  still  her  husbands,  and  likewise  the  wives  of  the 
brothers  of  my  father  still  his  wives— legally,  if  not 
always  in  fact— the  social  proscription  of  sexual  inter- 
course between  brothers  and  sisters  has  now  divided 
those  relatives  who  were  formerly  regarded  without 
distinction  as  brothers  and  sisters,  into  two  classes. 
In  one  category  are  those  who  remain  (more  remote) 
brothers  and  sisters  as  before;  in  the  other  the  chil- 
dren of  the  brother  on  one  hand  or  the  sister  on  the 
opposite,  who  can  be  brothers  and  sisters  no  longer. 
The  latter  have  mutual  parents  no  more,  neither 
father  nor  mother  nor  both  together.  And  for  this 
reason  the  class  of  nephews  and  nieces,  male  and 
female  cousins,  here  becomes  necessary  for  the  first 
time.  Under  the  former  family  order  this  would  have 
been  absurd.  The  American  system  of  kinship,  which 
appears  absolutely  paradoxical  in  any  family  form 
founded  on  monogamy,  is  rationally  explained  and 
naturally  confirmed  in  its  most  minute  details  by  the 
Punaluan  family.  Wherever  this  system  of  kinship 
was  in  force,  there  the  Punaluan  family  or  at  least  a 
form  akin  to  it  must  also  have  existed. 

This  family  form,  the  existence  of  which  in  Hawaii 
was  actually  demonstrated,  would  have  been  trans- 
mitted probably  by  all  Polynesia,  if  the  pious  mis- 
sionaries, similar  to  the  Spanish  monks  in  America, 
could  have  looked  upon  such  anti-Christian  relations 
as  being  something  more  than  simply  a  "horror."* 

♦There  is  no  longer  any  doubt  that  the  traces  of  nnre- 
stricted  sexual  intercourse,  which  Bachofen  alleges  to  have 
found— called  "incestuous  generation"  by  him— are  traceable 
to  group  marriage.  If  Bachofen  considers  those  Punaluan 
marriages  "lawless,"  a  man  of  that  period  would  look  upon 
most  of  our  present  marriages  between  near  and  remote 
cousins  on  the  father's  or  mother's  side  as  incestuous,  being 
marriages  between  consanguineous  relatives."— Marx. 


THE  FAMILY  49 

Cesar's  report  to  the  effect  that  the  Britons,  who  then 
were  in  the  middle  stage  of  barbarism,  "have  ten  or 
twelve  women  in  common,  mostly  brothers  with 
brothers  and  parents  with  children,"  is  best  explained 
by  group  marriage.  Barbarian  mothers  have  not  ten 
or  twelve  sons  old  enough  to  keep  women  in  common, 
but  the  American  system  of  kinship  corresponding  to 
the  Punaluan  family  furnishes  many  brothers,  because 
all  near  and  remote  cousins  of  a  certain  man  are  his 
brothers.  The  term  "parents  with  children"  may  arise 
from  a  wrong  conception  of  Cesar,  but  this  system 
does  not  absolutely  exclude  the  existence  of  father  and 
son,  mother  or  daughter  in  the  same  group.  It  does 
exclude,  however,  father  and  daughter  or  mother  and 
son.  This  or  a  similar  form  of  group  marriage  also 
furnishes  the  easiest  explanation  of  the  reports  of 
Herodotus  and  other  ancient  writers  concerning  com- 
munity of  women  among  savage  and  barbarian  na- 
tions. This  is  true,  furthermore,  of  Watson's  and 
Kaye's*  tale  about  the  Tikurs  of  Audh  (north  of  the 
Ganges):  "They  live  together  (i  e.,  sexually)  almost 
indiscriminately  in  large  communities,  and  though  two 
persons  may  be  considered  as  being  married,  still  the 
tie  is  only  nominal." 

The  institution  of  the  gens  seems  to  have  its  origin 
in  the  majority  of  cases  in  the  Punaluan  family.  True, 
the  Australian  class  system  also  offers  a  starting  point 
for  it;  the  Austrialians  have  gentes,  but  not  yet  a 
Punaluan  family,  only  a  cruder  form  of  group  mar- 
riage.* 

In  all  forms  of  the  group  family  it  is  uncertain  who 
is  the  father  of  a  child,  but  certain,  who  is  its  mother. 
Although  she  calls  all  the  children  of  the  aggregate 
family  her  children  and  has  the  duties  of  a  mother 
toward  them,  still  she  knows  her  natural  children  from 


♦The  People  of  India. 

•See  translator's  note,  p.  55. 


50  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

others.  It  is  also  obvious  that,  as  far  as  group  mar- 
riage exists,  descent  can  only  be  traced  on  the  moth- 
er's side  and,  hence,  only  female  lineage  be  acknowl- 
edged. This  is  actually  the  case  among  all  savage 
tribes  and  those  in  the  lower  stage  of  barbarism.  To 
have  discovered  this  first  is  the  second  great  merit  of 
Bachofen.  He  designates  this  exclusive  recognition 
of  descent  from  the  female  line  and  the  hereditary 
relations  resulting  therefrom  in  course  of  time  as 
"maternal  law."  I  retain  this  term  for  the  sake  of 
brevity,  although  it  is  distorted;  for  at  this  social  stage 
there  is  no  sign  yet  of  any  law  in  the  juridic  sense. 

If  we  now  take  one  of  the  two  standard  groups  of  a 
Punaluan  family,  namely  that  of  a  series  of  natural 
and  remote  sisters  (i.  e.,  first,  second  and  more  remote 
descendants  of  natural  sisters),  their  children  and 
their  natural  or  remote  brothers  on  the  mother's  side 
(who  according  to  our  supposition  are  not  their  hus- 
bands), we  have  exactly  that  circle  of  persons  who 
later  appear  as  members  of  a  gens,  in  the  original 
form  of  this  institution.  They  all  have  a  common  an- 
cestress, by  virtue  of  the  descent  that  makes  the 
different  female  generations  sisters.  But  the  hus- 
bands of  these  sisters  cannot  be  chosen  among  their 
brothers  any  more,  can  no  longer  come  from  the  same 
ancestress,  and  do  not  therefore,  belong  to  the  con- 
sanguineous group  of  relatives,  the  gens  of  a  later 
time.  The  children  of  these  same  sisters,  however,  do 
belong  to  this  group,  because  descent  from  the  female 
line  alone  is  conclusive,  alone  is  positive.  As  soon  as 
the  proscription  of  sexual  intercourse  between  all  rela- 
tives on  the  mother's  side,  even  the  most  remote  of 
them,  is  an  accomplished  fact,  the  above  named  group 
has  become  a  gens,  i.  e.,  constitutes  a  definite  circle 
of  consanguineous  relatives  of  female  lineage  who  are 
not  permitted  to  maiTy  one  another.  Henceforth  this 
circle  is  more  and  more  fortified  by  other  mutual  insti- 


THE  FAMILY  51 

tutions  of  a  social  or  religious  character  and  thus  dis- 
tinguished from  other  gentes  of  the  same  tribe.  Of 
this  more  anon. 

Finding,  as  we  do,  that  the  gens  not  only  necessarily, 
but  also  as  a  matter  of  course,  develops  from  thePuna- 
luan  family,  it  becomes  obvious  to  us  to  assume  as 
almost  practically  demonstrated  the  prior  existence  of 
this  family  form  among  all  those  nations  where  such 
gentes  are  traceable,  i.  e.,  nearly  all  barbarian  and 
civilized  nations. 

When  Morgan  wrote  his  book,  our  knowledge  of 
group  marriage  was  very  limited.  We  knew  very  lit- 
tle about  the  group  marriages  of  the  Australians  or- 
ganized in  classes,  and  furthermore  Morgan  had  pub- 
lished as  early  as  1871  the  information  he  had  received 
about  the  Punaluan  family  of  Hawaii.  This  family 
on  one  hand  furnished  a  complete  explanation  of  the 
system  of  kinship  in  force  among  the  American  In- 
dians, which  had  been  the  point  of  departure  for  all 
the  studies  of  Morgan.  On  the  other  hand  it  formed 
a  ready  means  for  the  deduction  of  the  maternal  law 
gens.  And  finally  it  represented  a  far  higher  stage 
of  development  than  the  Australian  classes. 

It  is,  therefore,  easy  to  understand  how  Morgan 
could  regard  this  form  as  the  stage  necessarily  pre- 
ceding the  pairing  family  and  attribute  general  exten- 
sion in  former  times  to  it.  Since  then  we  have  learned 
of  several  other  forms  of  the  group  marriage,  and  we 
know  that  Morgan  went  too  far  in  this  respect.  But 
it  was  nevertheless  his  good  fortune  to  encounter  in 
his  Punaluan  family  the  highest,  the  classical,  form 
of  group  maiTiage,  that  form  which  gave  the  sim- 
plest clue  for  the  transition  to  a  higher  stage. 

The  most  essential  contribution  to  our  knowledge  of 
the  group  maiTiage  we  owe  to  the  English  missionary, 
Lorimer  Fison,  who  studied  this  form  of  the  family 
for  years  on  its  classical  ground,  Australia.    He  found 


52  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

the  lowest  stage  of  development  among  tbe  Papuans 
near  Mount  Gambler  in  South  Australia.  Here  the 
whole  tribe  is  divided  into  two  great  classes,  Krokl 
and  Kumite.*  Sexual  intercourse  within  each  of  these 
classes  is  strictly  prohibited.  But  every  man  of  one 
class  is  by  birth  the  husband  of  every  woman  of  the 
other  class,  and  vice  versa.  Not  the  individuals  are 
married  to  one  another,  but  the  whole  groups,  class 
to  class.  And  mark  well,  no  caution  is  made  any- 
where on  account  of  difference  of  age  or  special  con- 
sanguinity, unless  it  is  resulting  from  the  division  into 
two  exogamous  classes.  A  Krokl  has  for  his  wife 
every  Kumite  woman.  And  as  his  own  daughter,  be- 
ing the  daughter  of  a  Kumite  woman,  is  also  Kumite 
according  to  maternal  law,  she  is  therefore  the  born 
wife  of  every  Kroki,  including  her  father.  At  least, 
the  class  organization,  as  we  know  it,  does  not  exclude 
this  possibility.  Hence  this  organization  either  arose 
at  a  time  when,  in  spite  of  all  dim  endeavor  to  limit 
Inbreeding,  sexual  intercourse  between  parents  and 
children  was  not  yet  regarded  with  any  particular 
horror;  in  this  case  the  class  system  would  be  directly 
evolved  from  a  condition  of  unrestricted  sexual  rela- 
tions. Or  the  Intercourse  between  parents  and  chil- 
dren was  already  proscribed  by  custom,  when  the 
classes  were  formed;  and  in  this  case  the  present  con- 
dition points  back  to  the  consanguine  family  and  is  the 
first  step  out  of  it.  Th*^  latter  case  is  the  more  prob- 
able. So  far  as  I  kno-^^  no  mention  is  made  of  any 
sexual  intercourse  between  parents  and  children  in 
Australia.  Even  the  later  form  of  exogamy,  the  ma- 
ternal law  gens,  as  a  rule  silently  presupposes  that  the 


Translator's  note. 

•According  to  Cunow.  Krok!  and  Kumite  are  phratrles. 
See  "Die  Verwandschaftsorganizationen  der  AustralnegeFs" 
by  Heinrich  Cunow.     Stuttgart,  Dietz  'Verlag,  18^. 


THE  FAMILY  53 

prohibition  of  tliis  intercourse  was  an  accomplished 
fact  at  the  time  of  its  institution. 

The  system  of  two  classes  is  not  only  found  near 
Mount  Gambler  in  South  Australia,  but  also  farther 
east  along  Darling  River,  and  in  the  northeast  of 
Queensland.  It  is,  consequently,  widespread.  It  ex- 
cludes only  marriage  between  brothers  and  sisters, 
between  brothers'  children  and  between  sisters'  chil- 
dren of  the  moth^-'s  side,  because  these  belong  to  the 
same  class;  but  the  children  of  a  sister  can  marry 
those  of  a  brother  and  vice  versa.  A  further  step  for 
preventing  inbreeding  is  found  among  the  Kamilaroi 
on  the  Darling  River  in  New  South  Wales,  where  the 
two  original  classes  are  split  into  four,  and  every  one 
of  these  is  married  as  a  whole  to  a  certain  other  class. 
The  first  two  classes  are  husbands  and  wives  by  birth. 
According  to  the  place  of  the  mother  in  the  first  or 
second  class,  the  children  belong  to  the  third  and 
fourth.  The  children  of  these  two  classes,  who  are 
also  married  to  one  another,  again  belong  to  the  first 
and  second  class.  So  that  a  certain  generation  be- 
longs to  the  first  and  second  class,  the  next  to  the  third 
and  fourth  and  the  following  again  to  the  first  and 
second.  Hence  the  children  of  natural  brothers  and 
sisters  (on  the  mother's  side)  cannot  marry  one  an- 
other, but  their  grandchildren  can  do  so.  This  pecu- 
liarly complicated  order  of  things  is  still  more  entan- 
gled by  the  inoculation— ev'  lently  at  a  later  stage — 
with  maternal  law  gentes  But  we  cannot  discuss 
this  further.  Enough,  the  desire  to  prevent  inbreed- 
ing again  and  again  demands  recognition,  but  feel- 
ing its  way  quite  spontaneously,  without  a  clear  con- 
ception of  the  goal. 

The  group  marriage  is  represented  in  Australia  by 
class  marriage,  i.  e.,  mass  marriage  of  a  whole  class 
of  men  frequently  scattered  over  the  whole  breadth  of 
the  continent  to  an   equally    widespread    class    of 


54  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

women.  A  close  view  of  this  group  man-iage  does  not 
offer  quite  such  a  horrible  spectacle  as  the  philistine 
imagination  accustomed  to  brothel  conditions  gener- 
ally pictures  to  itself.  On  the  contrary,  long  years 
passed,  before  its  existence  was  even  suspected,  and 
quite  recently  it  is  once  more  denied.  To  the  casual 
observer  it  malies  the  impression  of  a  loose  monogamy 
and  in  certain  places  of  polygamy,  with  occasional 
breach  of  faith.  Years  are  required  before  one  can 
discover,  like  Fison  and  Howitt,  the  law  regulating 
these  marital  conditions  that  rather  appeal  in  their 
practicability  to  the  average  European;  the  law  ena- 
bling the  strange  Papuan,  thousands  of  miles  from 
his  home  and  among  people  whose  language  he  does 
not  understand,  to  find  frequently,  from  camp  to 
camp  and  from  tribe  to  tribe,  women  who  will  with- 
out resistance  and  guilelessly  surrender  to  him;  the 
law  according  to  which  a  man  with  several  women 
offers  one  to  his  guest  for  the  night.  Where  the  Euro- 
pean sees  immorality  and  lawlessness,  there  in  reality 
a  strict  law  is  observed.  The  women  belong  to  the 
marriage  class  of  the  stranger  and,  therefore,  they 
are  his  wives  by  birth.  The  same  moral  law  assign- 
ing both  to  one  another  forbids  under  penalty  of 
proscription  all  sexual  intercourse  outside  of  the  two 
marriage  classes.  Even  when  women  are  abducted, 
as  is  frequently  the  case  in  certain  regions,  the  class 
law  is  carefully  respected. 

r^'ln  the  abduction  of  women,  by  the  way,  a  trace 
of  transition  to  monogamy  is  found  even  here,  at  least 
in  the  form  of  the  pairing  family.  If  a  young  man 
has  abducted  a  girl  with  the  help  of  his  friends,  they 
hold  sexual  intercourse  with  her  one  after  another. 
But  after  that  the  girl  is  regarded  as  the  wife  of  the 
young  man  who  planned  the  abduction.  And  again,  if 
an  abducted  woman  deserts  her  husband  and  is 
caught  by  another  man,  she  becomes  the  wife  of  the 


THE  FAMILY  55 

/latter  and  the  first  has  lost  his  privilege.  Alongside 
of  and  within  the  generally  existing  group  marriage 
such  exclusive  relations  are  formed,  pairing  for  a 
shorter  or  longer  term  by  the  side  of  polygamy,  so 
that  here  also  group  marriage  is  declining.  The  ques- 
tion is  only  which  will  first  disappear  under  the  pres- 
sure of  European  influence:  group  marriage  or  the 
Papuans  addicted  to  it. 

The  marriage  in  whole  classes,  such  as  is  in  force 
in  Australia,  is  no  doubt  a  very  low  and  primitive 
form  of  group  marriage,  while  the  Punaluan  family, 
so  far  as  we  know,  is  its  highest  stage  of  delevop- 
ment.  The  former  seems  to  be  corresponding  to  the 
social  stage  of  roving  savages,  the  latter  requires 
relatively  settled  communistic  bodies  and  leads  di- 
rectly to  the  next  higher  stage  of  development.  Be- 
tween these  two,  we  shall  no  doubt  find  many  an  inter- 
mediate stage.  Here  lies  a  barely  opened,  hardly 
entered  field  of  investigation.* 

Translator's  note. 

*Heinricli  Cunow  has  given  us  the  results  of  his  most 
recent  investigations  in  his  '•Verwandschaftsorganisationen 
der  Australneger."  He  sums  up  his  studies  in  these  words: 
"While  Morgan  and  Fison  regard  the  system  of  marriage 
classes  as  an  original  organization  preceding  the  so-called 
Punaluan  family,  I  have  found  that  the  class  is  indeed 
older  than  the  gens,  having  its  origin  in  the  different  strata 
of  generations  characteristic  of  the  "consanguine  family" 
of  Slorgan;  but  the  present  mode  of  classificatiou  in  force 
among  Kam.ilaroi,  Kabi,  Yuipera,  etc.,  cannot  have  arisen 
until  a  much  later  time,  when  the  gentile  institution  had 
already  grown  out  of  the  horde.  This  system  of  classifica- 
tion does  not  represent  the  first  timid  steps  of  evolution;  it 
is  not  the  most  primitive  of  any  known  forms  of  social 
organization,  but  an  intermediate  form  that  takes  shape 
together  with  the  gentile  society,  a  stage  of  transition  to  a 
pure  gentile  organization.  In  this  stage,  the  generic  classi- 
fication in  strata  of  different  ages  belonging  to  the  so-called 
consanguine  family  runs  parallel  for  a  while  with  the  gen- 
tile order 

It  would  have  been  easy  for  me  to  quote  the  testimony 
of  travelers  and  ethnologists  in  support  of  the  conclusions 
drawn  by  me  from  the  forms  of  relationship  among  Aus- 
tralian negroes.     But  I   purposely  refrain  from  doing  this, 


56  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

3.  THE  PAIRING  FAMILY. 
A  certain  pairing  for  a  longer  or  shorter  term  took 
place  even  during  the  group  marriage  or  still  earlier. 
A  man  had  his  principal  wife  (one  can  hardly  call  it 
favorite  wife  as  yet)  among  many  women,  and  he 
was  to  her  the  principal  husband  among  others.  This 
fact  in  no  small  degree  contributed  to  the  confusion 
among  missionaries,  who  regarded  group  marriage 
now  as  a  disorderly  community  of  women,  now  as  an 
arbitrary  adultery.  Such  a  habitual  pairing  would 
gain  ground  the  more  the  gens  developed  and  the 
more  numerous  the  classes  of  "brothers"  and  "sis- 
ters" became  who  were  not  permitted  to  marry  one 
another.  The  impulse  to  prevent  marriage  of  con- 
sanguineous relatives  started  by  the  gens  went  still 
further.    Thus  we  find  that  among  the  Iroquois  and 


with  a  few  exceptions,  first  because  I  do  not  wish  to  write 
a  general  history  of  the  primitive  family,  and,  secondly, 
because  I  consider  all  references  of  this  kind  as  very  doubt- 
ful testimony,  unless  they  are  accompanied  by  an  analysis 
of  the  entire  organization.  We  frequently  find  analogies  to 
the  institutions  of  a  lower  stage  in  a  high  stage,  and  yet 
they  are  founded  on  radically  different  premises  and  causes. 
The  evolution  of  the  Australian  aborigines  shows  that. 
Among  the  Australians  of  the  lower  stage,  e.  g.,  the  hordes 
are  endogamous,  among  those  of  the  middle  stage  they  are 
exogamous,  and  in  the  higher  stage  they  are  again  endoga- 
mous. But  while  in  the  one  instance  the  marriage  in  the 
horde  is  conditioned  on  the  fact  that  the  more  remote  rela- 
tives are  not  yet  excluded  from  sexual  intercourse,  it  is 
founded  in  the  other  case  on  the  difference  between  local 
and  sexual  organization.  Furthermore,  the  marriage  between 
daughter  and  father  is  permitted  in  the  lower  stage,  and 
again  in  that  higher  stage,  where  the  class  organization  of 
the  Kamilaroi  is  on  the  verge  of  dissolution,  put  in  both 
cases  the  circle  of  those  who  are  regarded  as  fibers  is  en- 
tirely different.  The  character  of  an  institution  can  only 
be  perfectly  understood,  if  we  examine  its  connection  with 
the  entire  organization,  and,  if  possible,  trace  Its  metamor- 
phoses in  the  preceding  stages 

The  characteristic  feature  of  the  class  system  is  that  by 
the  side  of  the  gentile  order,  such  as  is  found  among  the 
North  American  Indians,  there  is  always  another  system 
of  four  marriage  classes  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  sexual 
intercourse  between  certain  groups  of  relatives.  Neither  the 
phratry  nor  the  gens  of  the  Kamilaroi  forms  a  distinct  terrl- 


THE  FAMILY  57, 

most  of  the  Indians  in  the  lower  stage  of  barbarism 
marriage  is  prohibited  between  all  the  relatives  of 
their  system  of  kinship,  and  this  comprises  several 
hundred  kinds.  By  this  increasing  complication  of 
marriage  restrictions,  group  marriage  became  more 
and  more  impossible;  it  was  displaced  by  the  pairing 
family.  At  this  stage  one  man  lives  with  one  w^oman, 
but  in  such  a  manner  that  polygamy,  and  occasional 
adultery^  remain  privileges  of  men,  although  the 
former  occurs  rarely  for  economic  reasons.  Women, 
however,  are  generally  expected  to  be  strictly  faithful 
during  the  time  of  living  together,  and  adultery  on 
their  part  is  cruelly  punished.  But  the  marriage-tie 
may  be  easily  broken  by  either  party,  and  the  chil- 
dren belong  to  the  mother  alone,  as  formerly. 

torial  community.  Their  members  are  scattered  among  dif- 
ferent roving  hordes,  and  they  only  meet  occasionally,  e.  g., 
to  celebrate  a  feast  or  dance 

The  origin  of  gentile  systems  out  of  Funaluan  groups  has 
never  been  proven,  while  we  see  among  the  Australian 
negroes  that  the  classes  are  clearly  and  irrefutably  in  exist- 
ence among  the  first  traces  of  gentilism 

The  class  system  in  its  original  form  is  a  conclusive  proof 
of  Morgan's  theory,  that  the  first  step  in  the  formation  of 
systems  of  relationship  consisted  in  prohibiting  sexual  inter- 
course  between   parents   and   children   (in   a   wider   sense). 


It  has  been  often  disputed  that  the  Punaluan  family  ever 
existed  outside  of  the  Sandwich  Islands.  But  the  marriage 
institutions  of  certain  Australian  tribes  named  by  me  prove 
the  contrary.  The  Pirrauru  of  the  Dieyerie  is  absolutely 
identical  with  the  Punalua  of  the  Hawaiians;  and  these 
Institutions  were  not  described  by  travelers  who  rushed 
through  the  territories  of  those  tribes  without  knowing  their 
language,  but  by  men  who  lived  among  them  for  decades  and 
fully  mastered  their  dialects 

I  have  shown  how  far  the  class  system  corresponds  to  the 
Hawaiian  system.  It  is  and  remains  a  fact,  that  it  contains 
a  long  series  of  terms  that  cannot  be  explained  by  the 
relations  in  the  so-called  consanguine  family,  and  the  use 
of  which  creates  confusion,  if  applied  to  this  family.  But 
that  simply  shows  that  Morgan  was  mistaken  about  the  age 
and  present  structure  of  the  Hawaiian  system.     It  does  not 

Erove  that  It  could  not  have  grown  on  the  basis  assumed 
y  him 

If  the  opponents  of  Morgan  dispute  that  the  so-called  con- 


I\ 


58  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

In  this  ever  more  extending  restriction  of  marriage 
between  consanguineous  relations,  natural  selection 
also  remains  effective.  Ag^  Morgan  ^expresses  it: 
"Marriages  between  gentes  thaT~were~iiot  c^san- 
gulneous  produced  a  more  vigorous  raceT  pbysically 
and:Tllgng!Ivrtwo  progressiveTribeslntermarried^^and 
tb e  new  skuJls  and  brains  naturally  expanded_until 
tbey  comprised  the  faculties  of_both."  Thus  tribes 
cofeposedT  oT'gentes  necessarily  either  gained  the  su- 
premacy over  the  backward  ones  or,  by  their  example, 
carried  them  along  in  their  wake. 
The  development^of_theJamly,  then,  is  founded  on 
I  the  continual  contraction  of  the  circle^^  originally  com- 
prising the  wh€>r€rtriDe,  within-which  marital  inter- 
course between  both  sexes  was  general.    By  the  con- 


sanguine  family  is  based  on  blood  kinship,  ttiey  are  right, 
unless  we  wish  to  assign  an  exceptional  position  to  the  Aus- 
tralian strata  of  generations.  But  if  they  go  further  and 
declare  that  the  subsequent  restrictions  of  inbreeding  and 
the  gentile  order  have  arisen  independently  of  relationships, 
they  commit  a  far  greater  mistake  than  Morgan.  They  block 
their  way  to  an  understanding  of  subsequent  organizations 
and  force  themselves  to  all  sorts  of  queer  assumptions  that 
at  once  appear  as  the  fruits  of  imagination,  when  compared 

with  the  actual  institutions  of  primitive  peoples 

This  explanation  of  the  phases  of  development  of  family 
institutions  contradicts  present  day  views  on  the  matter. 
Since  the  scientific  Investigations  of  the  last  decade  have 
demonstrated  beyond  doubt  that  the  so-called  patriarchal 
family  was  preceded  by  the  matriarchal  family,  it  has  become 
the  custom  to  regard  descent  by  females  as  a  natural  insti- 
tution belonging  to  the  very  first  stages  of  development  which 
is  explained  by  the  modes  of  existence  and  thought  among 
savages.  Paternity  being  a  matter  of  speculation,  maternity 
of  actual  observation,  it  is  supposed  to  follow  that  descent 
by  females  was  always  recognized.  But  the  development  of 
the  Australian  systems  of  relationship  shows  that  this  is 
not  true,  at  least  not  in  regard  to  Australians.  The  fact  can- 
not be  disputed  away,  that  we  find  female  lineage  among  all 
those  higher  developed  tribes  that  have  progressed  to  the 
formation  of  gentile  organizations,  but  male  lineage  among 
all  those  that  have  no  gentile  organizations  or  where  these 
are  only  in  process  of  formation.  Not  a  single  tribe  has  been 
discovered  so  far,  where  female  lineage  was  not  combined 
with  gentile  organization,  and  I  doubt  that  any  will  ever 
be  found. 


THE  PAMILY  59 

tinual  exclusion,  first  of  neaivthen  of  ever  remoter 
relatives,  including  finally  even  those  who  were  simply 
related  legally,  all  group  mamage  becomes  practically 
impossible.""" At  lasFonly  one  couple,  temporarily  and 
loosely  united,  remains ;  that  molecule,  the  dissolution 
of  which  "absolutely  puts  an  end.  to  marriage.  Even 
from  this  we"  may  Tnfernbowlittle_toe  sexual  love  of 
the  individual  in  the  modern  sense  ofjthe  word  had  to 
do'  'With  the"^figrn  of  monogamy.  The  practice  of 
all  nations  oTthat  stage  still'more  proves  this.  While 
in  the  previous  form  of  the  family  the  men  were  never 
embarrassed  for  women,  but  rather  had  more  than 
enough  of  them,  women  now  became  scarce  and  were 
sought  after.  WUh  the  pairing^Jamily^^therefore,  the 
abduction_  and  barter  of  ^om en  began— widespread 
symptoms,  and  nothing  but  that,  of  a  new  and  much 
more  prof ouncr"cHangeT~^Ee"  pedantic  Scot,  McLen- 
na^TTiowever,  Transmuted  these  symptoms,  mere 
methods  of  obtaining  women,  into  separate  classes  of 
the  family  under  the  head  of  "marriage  by  capture" 
and  "marriage  by  barter."  Moreover  among  Amer- 
ican Indians  and  other  nations  in  the  same  stage,  the 
marriage  agreement  is  not  the  business  of  the  parties 
most  concerned,  who  often  are  not  even  aslied,  but  of 
their  mothers.  Frequently  two  persons  entirely  un- 
known to  one  another  are  thus  engaged  to  be  married 
and  receive  no  information  of  the  closing  of  the  bar- 
gain, until  the  time  for  the  marriage  ceremony  ap- 
proaches. Before  the  wedding,  the  bridegroom  brings 
gifts  to  the  maternal  relatives  of  the  bride  (not  to  her 
father  or  his  relatives)  as  an  equivalent  for  ceding  the 
girl  to  him.  Either  of  the  married  parties  may  dis- 
solve the  marriage  at  will.  But  among  many  tribes, 
as,  e.  g.,  the  Iroquois,  public  opinion  has  gradually  be- 
come averse  to  such  separations.  In  case  of  domestic 
differences  the  gentile  relatives  of  both  parties  en- 
deavor to  bring  about  a  reconciliation,  and  not  until 


6o  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY- 

they  are  unsuccessful  a  separation  takes  place.  In 
this  case  the  woman  keeps  the  children,  and  both  par- 
ties are  free  to  marry  again. 

The  pairing  family,  being  too  weak  and  too  un- 
stable to  make  an  independent  household  necessary  or 
even  desirable,  in  no  way  dissolves  the  traditional 
communistic  way  of  housekeeping.  But  household 
communism  implies  supremacy  of  women  in  the  house 
as  surely  as  exclusive  recognition  of  a  natural  mother 
and  the  consequent  impossibility  of  identifying  the 
natural  father  signify  high  esteem  for  women,  i.  e., 
mothers.  It  is  one  of  the  most  absurd  notions  derived 
from  eighteenth  century  enlightenment,  that  in  the 
beginning  of  society  woman  was  the  slave  of  man. 
Among  all  savages  and  barbarians  of  the  lower  and 
middle  stages,  sometimes  even  of^the  higher  stage, 
women°not~onTy  have  freedom,  but  are  held  in  high 
e^gpTrrrrW^ar'Ehey^~w"ere  even  in  the  pairing  family, 
let  Arthur  Wright,  for  many  years  a  missionary 
among  the  Seneca  Iroquois,  testify:  "As  to  their 
families,  at  a  time  when  they  still  lived  in  their  old 
long  houses  (communistic  households  of  several  fam- 
ilies) ...  a  certain  clan  (gens)  always  reigned,  so 
that  the  women  choose  their  husbands  from  other 
clans  (gentes).  .  .  .  The  female  part  generally 
ruled  the  house;  the  provisions  were  held  in  common; 
but  woe  to  the  luckless  husband  or  lover  who  was  too 
indolent  or  too  clumsy  to  contribute  his  share  to  the 
common  stock.  No  matter  how  many  children  or  how 
niuchprixate  property  TTe^ad  in  the  house,  he  was 
liable  at  any  moment  to  receive  a  hint  to  gather  up 
hls_  belongings  and~get  out.  And  he  could  not  dare 
to  venture  any  resistance ;  the  house  was  made  too 
hot  for  him  and  he  had  no  other  choice,  but  to  return 
to  his  own  clan  (gens)  or.  as  was  mostly  the  case,  to 
look  for  another  wife  in  some  other  clan.  The  women 
were  the  dominating  power  in  the  clans  (gentes)  and 


THE  FAMILY  6l 

everywhere  else.  Occasionally  they  did  not  hesitate 
to  dethrone  a  chief  and  degrade  him  to  a  common 
warrior." 

The  communistic  household,  in  which  most  or  all 
the  women  belong  to  one  and  the  same  gens,  while  the 
husband^^ome^  £rnm  di^^reBt-gentes,  is  the  cause  and 
foundation  of  the  general  and  widespread  supremacy 
of  women  in  primeval  times.  The  discovery  of  this 
fact  is  the  third  merit  of  Bachofen. 

By  way  of  supplement  I  wish  to  state  that  the  re- 
ports of  travelers  and  missionaries  concerning  the 
overburdening  of  women  among  savages  and  bar- 
barians do  not  in  the  least  contradict  the  above  state- 
ments. Xhe,  division  of  labor  between  both  sexes  is 
c^used-by -Other  reasons  than~tE£:ia3Ctali:c5Erdittonr~of 
women.  Nations,  where  women  have  to  work  much 
harder  than  is  proper  for  them  in  our  opinion,  often 
respect  women  more  highly  than  Europeans  do.  The 
lady  of  civilized  countries,  surrounded  with  sham 
homage  and  a  stranger  to  all  real  work  stands  on  a 
far  lower  social  level  than  a  hard-working  barbarian 
woman,  regarded  as  a  real  lady  (frowa-lady-mistress) 
and  having  the  character  of  such. 

Whether  or  not  the  pairing  family  has  in  our  time 
entirely  supplanted  group  mari'iage  in  America,  can 
be  decided  only  by  closer  investigations  among  those 
nations  of  northwestern  and  especially  of  southern 
America  that  are  still  in  the  higher  stage  of  savagery. 
About  the  latter  so  many  reports  of  sexual  license  are 
current  that  the  assumption  of  a  complete  cessation 
of  the  ancient  group  marriage  is  hardly  warranted. 
Evidently  all  traces  of  it  have  not  yet  disappeared. 
In  at  least  forty  North  American  tribes  the  man 
marrying  an  elder  sister  has  the  right  to  make  all  her 
sisters  his  wives  as  soon  as  they  are  of  age,  a  sur- 
vival of  the  community  of  men  for  the  whole  series 
of  sisters.    And  Bancroft  relates  that  the  Indians  of 


62  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

the  Californian  peninsula  celebrate  certain  festivities 
uniting  several  "tribes"  for  the  purpose  of  unrestricted 
sexual  intercourse.  These  are  evidently  gentes  that 
have  preserved  in  these  festivities  a  vague  recollec- 
tion of  the  time  when  the  women  of  one  gens  had  for 
their  common  husbands  all  the  men  of  another  gens, 
and  vice  versa.  The  same  custom  is  still  observed  in 
Australia.  Among  certain  nations  it  sometimes  hap- 
pens that  the  older  men,  the  chief  and  sorcerer-priests, 
exploit  the  community  of  women  for  their  own  bene- 
fits and  monopolize  all  the  women.  But  in  their  turn 
they  must  restore  the  old  community  during  certain 
festivities  and  great  assemblies,  permitting  their  wives 
to  enjoy  themselves  with  the  young  men.  A  whole 
series  of  examples  of  such  periodical  saturnalia  re- 
storing for  a  short  time  the  ancient  sexual  freedom  is 
quoted  by  Westermarck:*  among  the  Hos,  the  Santals, 
the  Punjas  and*Kotars  in  India,  among  some  African 
nations,  etc.  Curiously  enough  Westermarck  con- 
cludes that  this  is  a  survival,  not  of  group  marriage, 
the  existence  of  which  he  denies,  but— of  a  rutting 
season  which  primitive  man  had  in  common  with  other 
animals. 

Here  we  touch  Bachofen's  fourth  great  discovery: 
the  widespread  form  of  transition  from  group  mar- 
riage to  pairing  family.  What  Bachofen  represents 
as  a  penance  for  violating  the  old  divine  laws— the 
penalty  with  which  a  woman  redeems  her  right  to 
chastity,  is  in  fact  only  a  mystical  expression  for  the 
penalty  paid  by  a  woman  for  becoming  exemfJt  from 
the  ancient  community  of  men  and  acquiring  the  right 
of  surrendering  to  one  man  only.  This  penalty  con- 
sists in  a  limited  surrender:  Babylonian  women  had 
to  surrender  once  a  year  in  the  temple  of  Mylitta; 
other  nations  of  Western  Asia  sent  their  young  women 


♦The  History  of  Human  Marriage,  p.  28-29. 


THE  FAMILY  63 

for  years  to  the  temple  of  Anaitis,  where  they  had  to 
practice  free  love  with  favorites  of  their  own  choice 
before  they  were  allowed  to  marry.  Similar  customs 
in  a  religious  disguise  are  common  to  nearly  all  Asi- 
atic nations  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the 
Ganges.  The  penalty  for  exemption  becomes  gradu- 
ally lighter  in  course  of  time,  as  Bachofen  remarks: 
"The  annually  repeated  surrender  gives  place  to  a 
single  sacrifice;  the  hetaerism  of  the  matrons  is  fol- 
lowed by  that  of  the  maidens,  the  promiscuous  inter- 
course during  marriage  to  that  before  wedding,  the 
indiscriminate  intercourse  with  all  to  that  with  cer- 
tain individuals."*  Among  some  nations  the  religious 
disguise  is  missing.  Among  others— Thracians,  Celts, 
etc.,  in  classic  times,  many  primitive  inhabitants  of 
India,  Malay  nations,  South  Sea  Islanders  and  many 
American  Indians  to  this  day— the  girls  enjoy  absolute 
sexual  freedom  before  marriage.  This  is  especially 
true  almost  everywhere  in  South  America,  as  every- 
body can  confirm  who  penetrates  a  little  into  the  in- 
terior. Agassiz,  e.  g.,  relates*  an  anecdote  of  a  wealthy 
family  of  Indian  descent.  On  being  introduced  to  the 
daughter  he  asked  something  about  her  father,  pre- 
suming him  to  be  her  mother's  husband,  who  was  in 
the  war  against  Paraguay.  But  the  mother  replied, 
smiling:  "Nao  tem  pai,  he  filha  da  fortuna"— she 
hasn't  any  father;  she  is  the  daughter  of  chance.  **It 
isthe  way  the  Indian  or  half-breed  women  here  always 
speak  of  their  illegitimate  children;  and  though  they 
say  it  without  an  intonation  of  sadness  or  of  blame, 
apparently  as  unconscious  of  any  wrong  or  shame  as 
if  they  said  the  father  was  absent  or  dead,  it  has  the 
most  melancholy  significance;  it  seems  to  speak  of 
such  aTJsofute  desertion.    So  far  is  this  from  being  an 


♦Mutterrecht,  p.  xix. 

*A  Journey  in  Brazil.    Boston  and  New  York,  18»6.    Fage 


64  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

unusual  case,  that  among  the  common  people  the  oppo- 
site seems  the  exception.  Children  are  frequently 
quite  ignorant  of  their  parentage.  They  know  about 
their  mother,  for  all  the  care  and  responsibility  falls 
upon  her,  but  they  have  no  knowledge  of  their  father; 
nor  does  it  seem  to  occur  to  the  woman  that  she  or  her 
children  have  any  claim  upon  him."  What  seems  so 
strange  to  the  civilized  man,  is  simply  the  rule  of 
maternal  law  and  group  marriage. 

Again,  among  other  nations  the  friends  and  rela- 
tives of  the  bridegroom  or  the  wedding  guests  claim 
their  traditional  right  to  the  bride,  and  the  bridegroom 
comes  last.  This  custom  prevailed  in  ancient  times  on 
the  Baleares  and  among  the  African  Augilers;  it  is 
observed  to  this  day  by  the  Bareas  in  Abyssinia,  In 
still  other  cases,  an  official  person— the  chief  of  a  tribe 
or  a  gens,  the  cazique,  shamane,  priest,  prince  or  what- 
ever may  be  his  title— represents  the  community  and 
exercises  the  right  of  the  first  night.  All  modern  ro- 
mantic whitewashing  notwithstanding,  this  jus  primae 
noctis,  is  still  in  force  among  most  of  the  natives 
of  Alaska,*  among  the  Tahus  of  northern  Mexico** 
and  some  other  nations.  And  during  the  whole  of  the- 
middle  ages  it  was  practised  at  least  in  originally 
Celtic  countries,  where  it  was  directly  transmitted  by 
group  marriage,  e.  g.  in  Aragonia.  While  in  Castilia 
the  peasant  was  never  a  serf,  the  most  disgraceful 
serfdom  existed  in  Aragonia,  until  abolished  by  the 
decision  of  Ferdinand  the  Catholic  in  1486.  In  this 
document  we  read:    "We  decide  and  declare  that  the 

aforesaid  'senyors'  (barons) shall  neither 

sleep  the  first  night  with  the  wife  of  a  peasant  nor 
shall  they  in  the  first  night  after  the  wedding,  when 
the  woman  has  gone  to  bed,  step  over  said  woman  or 


♦Bancroft.  Native  Races,  I.,  81. 
♦•Ibidem,  p.  584. 


THE  FAMILY  65 

bed  as  a  sign  of  their  authority.  Neither  shall  the 
aforesaid  senyors  use  the  daughter  or  the  son  of  any 
peasant,  with  or  without  pay,  against  their  will." 
(Quoted  in  the  Catalonlan  original  by  Sugenheim, 
"Serfdom,"  Petersburg,  18G1,  page  35.) 

Bachofen,  furthermore,  is  perfectly  right  in  con- 
tending that  the  transition  from  what  he  calls 
"hetaerism"  or  "incestuous  generation"  to  monogamy 
was  brought  about  mainly  by  women.  The  more  in 
the  course  of  economic  development,  undermining  the 
old  communism  and  increasing  the  density  of  popula- 
tion,-the  traditional  sexual  relations  lost  their  inno- 
cent character  suited  to  the  primitive  forest,  the  more 
debasing  and  oppressive  they  naturally  appeared  to 
women;  and  the  more  they  consequently  longed  for 
relief  by  the  right  of  chastity,  of  temporary  or  perma- 
nent marriage  with  one  man.  "^^^^  p^'^g''*^^^  ^^u1djW____ 
be  due  to  men  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  never, 
ey^iuta4hi8  day,  bad  the- least  rntehtTon"oTTenouncing 
the-pleasuies  of  actual ^^rgnpnma^iTmger;yo|juntilJh^ 
woirren"Bai3r'HCt!ompltshed  tbe  transition  to  the  pairing 
family  could  the^men  introduce  strict  monogamy— 
true,  only  for  womefl.   ,  " 

TEe  pairing  Jam Uy^  arose  on  the  boundary  line  be-  ^/ 
tween  savagery  and  barbarism,  generally  Th^helirghei' 
atage^of  savagery,  here  ana  mere  in  tbe  lower  siage^ 
of  barbarism^.. 1 1^ is  the  form  of  the  family  character- 
istic for  barbarism,  as  group  marriage"  is  tor  savage^^ 
and  monogamy  for  civilizatTonl     lETofdeFTo  develop 
~tL  Into  esLablisned  monoganiyT  other  causes  than  those 
active  hitherto  were  required.    In  the  pairing  family 
the  group  was  already  reduced  to  its  last  unit,  its  bi- 
atomic  molecule:    one  man  and  one  woman.  .J^atural 
selection^ad  accomplished  its  purpose  by  a  continu- 
^llyincreasm^TesHISSgloT^^ 

Ing^emained  tojbejdone  in_this  direction^  UnlessSiew 
social  forces  became  active,  there  was  no  reason  why 


66  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

a  new  form  of  the  family  should  develop  out  of  the 
pairing "familyT^But  These^orces  liid  become  active. 

WenovvTeave  America,  the  classic  soil  of  the  pair- 
ing family.  No  sign  permits  the  conclusion  that  a 
higher  form  of  the  family  was  developed  here,  that 
any  established  form  of  monogamy  ever  existed  any- 
where in  the  New  World  before  the  discovery  and 
conquest.    Not  so  in  the  Old  World. 

In  the  latter,  the  domestication  of  animals  and  .the  y 
breeding  of  flocks  had  developed  a  hitherto  unknowa^ 
source  of7TvealtJi;ancl  created  entirely  new  social  con- 
ditions. X^P  to  the  lower  stage  of  baxbarism,  fixed 
■vveaTfh  was  almost  exclusively  represented  by  .houses, 
cTothiiig,  ru ugh  "Tyrnameht s  andTThe  tools  for  obtaining 
aM~preparing  toOd:  boatsyweapons  and  household 
articles"  of  tiie  simplest  kind.  Nourishment  had  to 
be~secured  afresh  day  by  day.  But  now,  with  their 
herds  of  horses,  camels,  donkeys,  cattle,  sheep,  goats 
and  hogs,  the  advancing  nomadic  nations— the  Ary- 
ans in  the  Indian  Punjab,  in  the  region  of  the  Ganges 
and  the  steppes  of  the  Oxus  and  Jaxartes,  then  still 
more  rich  in  water-veins  than  now;  the  Semites  on 
the  Euphrates  azid  Tigi'is— had  acquired  possessions 
demanding  only  the  most  crude  attention  and  care  in 
order  to  propagate  themselves  in  ever  increasing  num- 
bers and  yield  the  most  abundant  store  of  milk  and 
m eat.  All  former  means  of  obtnininp?  food-  were,  now 
forced*  to  the  background^__Huntiiig,  nnce  a  Jiecessity, 
nuvv  became  a  sport.    """" 

— BuTwEgrmrTEel^wner  of  this,new  ,wealthl_.  Doubt- 
lesjjt  was  originally  the  gens.  However,  private 
6whergHTp"oTSbc^s  must  have  had  an  early  beginning. 
It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  to  the  author  of  the  so- 
called  first  book  of  Moses  Father  Abraham  appeared 
as  the  owner  of  his  flocks  by  virtue  of  his  privilege  as 
head  of  a  communistic  family  or  of  his  capacity  as 
gentile  chief  by  actual  descent.    So  much  is  certain: 


THE  FAMILY  (iTJ 

we  must  not  regard  him  as  a  proprietor  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word.  It  is  furthermore  certain  that 
everywhere  on  the  threshold  of  documentary  history 
we  find  the  floclis  in  the  separate  possession  of  ctiiefs 
of  families,  exactly  like  the  productions  of  barbarian 
art,  such  as  metal  ware,  articles  of  luxury  and,  finally, 
the  human  cattle— the  slaves. 

For  now  slavery^  was  als(Llli3^£nted; — ^o  the  barba- 
rian of  the  lower  stage  a  sj_aye_was  of  no  use.  The 
American  Indians,  therefore,  treated  their  vanquished 
enemies  in  quite  a  different  w^ay  from  nations  of  a 
higher  stage.  The  men  were  tortured  or  adopted  as 
brothers  into  the  tribe  of  the  vict-ors.  The  women 
were  married  or  likewise  adopted  with  their  surviving 
children.  The  human  laborjpower  at  this  stage  does 
not  yet  produce  a  considerable  amount  over  and  above 
its^cost  or^UMIstegce.  But  the  introduction  of  cattle 
r^ising^_^etal  industry,  weaving  and  finally  agricul- 
t ure^wroughT  a  change.  Just  as  the  once  easily  ob- 
taina  ble  wives  "now  Fad  an  exchange  value  and  were 
bought,  so  labor  power  was  now  procured,  especially 
since  the  flocks  had  definitely  become  private  property. 
The  family  did  not  increase  as  rapidly  as  the  cattle. 
More  people  were  needed  for  superintending;  for  this 
purpose  the  captured  enemy  was  available  and,  be- 
sides, he  could  be  increased  by  breeding  like  the 
cattle. 

Such  riches,  once  they  had  Jbecome  _the_  private 
property  of^certain  families_andaugmented  rapidly, 
gave  a  -powerful  impulse  to  society  founded  on  the 
pairing  famjJxjaJld  iJEmafernal  gens.  The  pairing 
family  had  introduced  a  new  element.  By  the  side 
of  the  natural  mother  it  had  placed  the  authentic 
natural  father  who  probably  was  better  authenticated 
than  many  a  "father"  of  our  day.  According  to__the 
division  of  labor  in  those  times,  thp  tnsk  of  oMainmg 
looa  and  tne  tools  necessary  for  this  purpose  fell  to 


68 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 


the  share  of  the  man;Jience  he  owned  the  latter  and 
"Fept  thOHTTh  'case'  of  a  leparatioriy  as  the  women  did 
tne  nousehold  goods.  Accordin£^o_the_so^mljcus^^ 
of  that  time,the_man_was_also  the  owner  of_the_new 
source  ^f~existence,  the  cattle^and^ater  on  of  the  new 
^ut  accor3lngToThe  same 
)roperty. 
e.. 


labT7r-pt)W^rrtEe7IIaves." 
custom,  his~~cbildren  could  not  inherit  his 
f6F^lie~following^reasOTisl  By^matefnaTlaw,  i. 
whlIe~Hescent  was  traced  only  along  the  female  line, 
and  by  the  original  custom  of  inheriting  in  the  gens, 
the  gentile  relatives  inherited  the  property  of  their 
deceased  gentile  relative.  The  wealth  had  to  remain 
in  the  gens.  In  view  of  the  insignificance  of  the  ob- 
jects, the  property  may  have  gone  in  practice  to  the 
closest  gentile  relatives,  i.  e.,  the  consanguine  rela- 
tives on  the  mother's  side.    The  children  of  the  dead 


man,^oweverjjdid  not  belonglxr  his  gensTlbut  to  that 
of  their  mother.  They  m^erTt6q^'gfst~tggefber  with 
t^ie"other  consanguine  relatives  or^ttre-Tirottrer7"later 
on7^efEaps~lir^eference  to  tKe^TTffieTs;     But  jthey 

coulJnoEInherltTrom^t^^i^^  ^^^ 

noTlbelong  to  his  gens,  ""where  his  properfy'had  to 
re  maim  H  enceT  a  tter  t  he_deatr2r_a„cattlel^5wner, 
the  cattle  woigd"~faTTTo~hls  brothers,  s[sters  and  the 
children  of  his^sters.  or  to  the  offsprfng  of'fhesisters 
of  his  mother.  "His  own  children  were  disinherited. 
^Jhe^easure  ortheTincreasing  wealth  man's  posi- 
'  tioD^injthe  family  became  superior  to  that  oFwoman, 
and  the  desire  aFdse'to'use  thisTortified  position  for 
the  purpose  of  overthrowing  Ihe  traditional  law  of 
inheritance  in  faypr^rhis  chMren.  "pi^:,liii^jvas_m)t 
feasible  as  long  as  maternal  law  was  valid.  This  law 
h^ d ''tQ^je~^Bott"5t[Bdr'-HTidI3f~was:  This  was~1by^o 
means  a?~aifficult  ^c§  it  appears^tb  us  to-day.  For  this 
revolution— one  of  the  most  radical  ever  experienced 
by  humanity— did  not  have  to  touch  a  single  living 
member  of  the  gens.    All  its  members  could  remain 


r  THE  FAMILY  69 

what  they  had  always  been.  TJie  simple  ..rpsolution 
was_^fficieiit^  that  ^i^'^ngf^rth  t^'^  ^^gprirg  of  the 
male  members  jhouldjbelong.to  the  gens,  while_the 
children  of  the  femalejmfiinbers  shnnlrlJia^xcluded^ 
trpngfprriTig  thpm^  to  thp  gpns  of  their  father.  This 
abolished  the  tracing_of  descent  by  female  lineage 
aiiS'the  maternarrigbt_of  inheritance,  and  instituted 
de'scFnJTllma£^lm£a^e-aad-4he-^aternaLri_gh 
heritance.  How  and  Tvhen  this  revolution  was  accom- 
plished by  the  nations  of  the  earth,  we  do  not  know. 
It  belongs  entirely  to  prehistoric  times.  That  it  was 
accomplished  is  proven  more  than  satisfactorily  by 
the  copious  traces  of  maternal  law  collected  especially 
by  Bachofen.  How  easily  it  is  accomplished  we  may 
observe  in  a  whole  series  of  Indian  tribes,  that  recent- 
ly passed  through  or  are  still  engaged  in  it,  partly 
under  the  influence  of  increasing  wealth  and  changed 
modes  of  living  (transfer  from  forests  to  the  prairie), 
partly  through  the  moral  pressure  of  civilization  and 
missionaries.  Six  out  of  eight  Missouri  tribes  have 
male  descent  and  inheritance,  while  only  two  retain 
female  descent  and  inheritance.  The  Shawnees, 
Miamis  and  Delawares  follow  the  custom  of  placing 
their  children  into  the  male  gens  by  giving  them  a 
gentile  name  belonging  to  the  father's  gens,  so  that 
they  may  be  entitled  to  inherit.  "Innate  casuistry  of 
man,  to  change  the  objects  by  changing  their  names, 
and  to  find  loopholes  for  breaking  tradition  inside  of 
tradition  where  a  direct  interest  was  a  sufficient  mo- 
tive." (Marx.)  This  made  confusion  worse  con- 
founded, which  could  be  and  partially  was  remedied 
alone  by  paternal  law.  "This  seems  to  be  the  most 
natural  transition."  (Marx.)  As  to  the  opinion  of  the 
comparative  jurists,  how  this  transition  took  place 
among  the  civilized  nations  of  the  old  world— although 
only  in  hypotheses— compare  M.  Kovalevsky,  Tableau 


70  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY  v 

des  origines  et  de  revolution  de  la  famille  et  de  la 
propriete,  Stockholm,  1890. 

/  The  downfall  of  maternal  lajwiwas  the  historic  de- 
feat of  the  female  sex.  The  men  seized  the  reins  also 
in  the  house,  the  women  were  stripped  of  their  dignity, 
enslaved,  tools  of  men's  lust  and  mere  machines  for 
the  generation  of  children.  This  degrading  position 
of  women,  especially  conspicuous  among  the  Greeks 
of  heroic  and  still  more  of  classic  times,  was  gradually 
glossed  over  and  disguised  or  even  clad  in  a  milder 
form.    But  it  is  by  no  means  obliterated. 

The  first  effect  of  the  established  supremacy  of  men 
became  now  visible  in  the  reappearance  of  the  inter- 
mediate form  of  the  patriarchal  family.  Its  most 
significant  feature  is  not  polygamy,  of  which  more 
anon,  but  "the  organization  of  a  certain  number  of 
free  and  unfree  persons  into  one  family  under  the 
paternal  authority  of  the  head  of  the  family.  In  the 
Semitic  form  this  head  of  the  family  lives  in  polyg- 
amy, the  unfree  members  have  wife  and  children,  and 
the  purpose  of  the  whole  organization  is  the  tending 
of  herds  in  a  limited  territory."  The  essential  points 
are  the  assimilation  of  the  unfree  element  and  the 
paternal  authority.  Hence  the  ideal  type  of  this  form 
of  the  family  is  the  Roman  family.  The  word  familia 
did  not  originally  signify  the  composite  ideal  of 
sentimentality  and  domestic  strife  in  the  present  day 
Philistine  mind.  Among  the  Romans  it  did  not  even 
apply  in  the  beginning  to  the  leading  couple  and  its 
children,  but  to  the  slaves  alone.  Famulus  means 
domestic  slave,  and  familia  is  the  aggregate  number 
of  slaves  belonging  to  one  man.  At  the  time  of  Gajus, 
the  familia,  id  est  pati'imonium  (i.  e.,  paternal  legacy), 
was  still  bequeathed  by  testament.  The  expression 
was  invented  by  the  Romans  in  order  to  designate  a 
new  social  organism,  the  head  of  which  had  a  wife, 
children  and  a  number  of  slaves  under  his  paternal 


THE  FAMILY  71 

authority  and  according  to  Roman  law  the  right  of 
life  and  death  over  all  of  them.  "The  word  is,  there- 
fore, not  older  than  the  ironclad  family  system  of  the 
Latin  tribes,  which  arose  after  the  introduction  of 
agriculture  and  of  lawful  slavery,  and  after  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  Aryan  Itali  from  the  Greeks."  Marx 
adds:  "The  modern  family  contains  the  germ  not 
only  of  slavery  (servitus),  but  also  of  serfdom,  because 
it  has  from  the  start  a  relation  to  agricultural  service. 
It  comprises  in  miniature  all  those  contrasts  that 
later  on  develop  more  broadly  in  society  and  the 
istate." 

Such  a  form  of  the  family  shows  the  transition 
from  the  pairing  family  to  monogamy.  In  order  to 
^ppTrrp_thp  fnithfnlnpss  of  t|ip  wifp,  and  hence  the 
rejiability  of-palErnaULineage,  the  women  are  delivered 
absolutely  into  the  power  of  the  men:  in  killing  his 
wife,  the  husband  simply  exercl&£s_M&  right. 

With  the  patriarchal  family  we  enter  the  domain 
of  written  history,  a  field  in  which  comparative  law 
can  render  considerable  assistance.  And  here  it  has 
brought  about  considerable  progress  indeed.  We  owe 
to  Maxim  Kovalevsky  (Tableau  etc.  de  la  famille  et 
de  la  propriete,  Stockholm,  1890,  p.  60-100)  the  proof, 
that  the  patriarchal  household  community,  found  to 
this  day  among  Serbians  and  Bulgarians  under  the 
names  of  Zadruga  (friendly  bond)  and  Bratstvo  (fra- 
ternity), and  in  a  modified  form  among  oriental  na- 
tions, formed  the  stage  of  transition  between  the 
maternal  family  derived  from  group  marriage  and 
the  monogamous  family  of  the  modern  world.  This 
seems  at  least  established  for  the  historic  nations  of 
the  old  world,  for  Aryans  and  Semites. 

The  Z&druga  of  southern  Slavonia  offers  the  best 
still  existing  illustration  of  such  a  family  communism. 
It  comprises  several  generations  of  the  father's  de- 
scendants, tofe'&tHer  wUb  their  wives,  all  living  to- 


X 


72  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

gether  on  the  same  farm,  tilling  their  fields  in  common, 
living  and  clothing  themselves  from  the  same  stock, 
and  possessing  collectively  the  surplus  of  their  earn- 
ings. The  community  is  managed  by  the  master  of 
the  house  (domacin),  who  acts  as  its  representative, 
may  sell  inferior  object^,  has  charge  of  the  treasury 
and  is  responsible  for  it  as  well  as  for  a  proper  busi- 
ness administration.  He  is  chosen  by  vote  and  is  not 
necessarily  the  oldest  man.  The  women  and  their 
work  are  directed  by  the  mistress  of  the  house 
(domacica),  who  is  generally  the  wife  of  the  domacin. 
She  also  has  an  important,  and  often  final,  voice  in 
choosing  a  husband  for  the  girls.  But  the  highest 
authority  is  vested  in  the  family  council,  the  assembly 
of  all  grown  companions,  male  and  female.  The 
domacin  is  responsible  to  this  council.  It  takes  all 
important  resolutions,  sits  in  judgment  on  the  mem- 
bers of  the  household,  decides  the  question  of  impor- 
tant purchases  and  sales,  especially  of  land,  etc. 

It  is  only  about  ten  years  since  the  existence  of  such 
family  communism  in  the  Russia  of  to-day  was 
proven.  At  present  it  is  generally  acknowledged  to 
be  rooted  in  popular  Russian  custom  quite  as  much 
as  the  obscina  or  village  community. 

It  is  found  in  the  oldest  Russian  code,  the  Pravda 
of  Jaroslav,  under  the  same  name  (vervj)  as  in  the 
Dalmatian  code,  and  may  also  be  traced  in  Polish  and 
Czech  historical  records. 

Likewise  among  Germans,  the  economic  unit  accord- 
ing to  Heussler  (Institutions  of  German  law)  is  not 
originally  the  single  family,  but  the  "collective  house- 
hold," comprising  several  generations  or  single  fami- 
lies and,  besides,  often  enough  unfree  individuals. 
The  Roman  family  is  also  traced  to  this  type,  and 
hence  the  absolute  authority  of  the  master  of  the 
house  and  the  defenselessness  of  the  other  members 
in  regard  to  him  is  strongly  questioned  of  late.   Siml- 


THE  FAMILY  73 

lar  communities  are  furthermore  said  to  have  existed 
among  the  Celts  of  Ireland.  In  France  they  were  pre- 
served up  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution  in  Nivernais 
under  the  name  of  "pargonneries,"  and  in  the  Franche 
Comt6  they  are  not  quite  extinct  yet.  In  the  region 
of  Louhans  (Saone  et  Loire)  v^e  find  large  farmhouses 
with  a  high  central  hall  for  common  use  reaching  up 
to  the  roof  and  surrounded  by  sleeping  rooms  acces- 
sible by  the  help  of  stairs  with  six  to  eight  steps. 
Several  generations  of  the  same  family  live  together 
in  such  a  house. 

In  India,  the  household  community  with  collective 
agriculture  is  already  mentioned  by  Nearchus  at  the 
time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  and  it  exists  to  this  day 
in  the  same  region,  in  the  Punjab  and  the  whole 
Northwest  of  the  country.  In  the  Caucasus  It  was 
located  by  Kovalevski  himself. 

In  Algeria  it  is  still  found  among  the  Kabyles.  Even 
in  America  it  is  said  to  have  existed.  It  is  supposed 
to  be  identical  with  the  "Calpullis"  described  by  Zurita 
in  ancient  Mexico.  In  Peru,  however,  Cunow  (Aus- 
land,  1890,  No.  42-44)  has  demonstrated  rather  clearly 
that  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  a  sort  of  a  constitu- 
tion in  marks  (called  curiously  enough  marca),  with 
a  periodical  allotment  of  arable  soil,  and  consequently 
individual  tillage,  was  in  existence. 

At  any  rate,  the  patriarchal  household  community 
with  collective  tillage  and  ownership  of  land  now 
assumes  an  entirely  different  meaning  than  heretofore. 
We  can  no  longer  doubt  that  it  played  an  important 
role  among  the  civilized  and  some  other  nations  of  the 
old  world  in  the  transition  from  the  maternal  to  the 
single  family.  Later  on  we  shall  return  to  Kovales- 
ky's  further  conclusion  that  it  was  also  the  stage  of 
transition  from  which  developed  the  village  or  mark 
community  with  individual  tillage  and  first  periodical, 
then  permanent  allotment  of  arable  and  pasture  lands. 


74  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

In  regard  to  the  family  life  within  these  household 
communities  it  must  be  remarked  that  at  least  in 
Russia  the  master  of  the  house  has  the  reputation  of 
strongly  abusing  his  position  against  the  younger 
women  of  the  community,  especially  his  daughters- 
in-law,  and  of  transforming  them  into  a  harem  for  him- 
self. Russian  popular  songs  are  very  eloquent  on  this 
point. 

Before  taking  up  monogamy,  which  rapidly  devel- 
oped after  the  downfall  of  maternal  law,  let  me  say 
a  few  words  about  polygamy  and  polyandry.  Both 
forms  of  the  family  can  only  be  exceptions,  historical 
products  of  luxury  so  to  speak,  unless  they  could  be 
found  side  by  side  in  the  same  country,  which  is 
apparently  not  the  case.  As  the  men  excluded  from 
polygamy  cannot  find  consolation  in  the  women  left 
over  by  polyandry,  the  number  of  men  and  women 
being  hitherto  approximately  equal  without  regard  to 
social  institutions,  it  becomes  of  itself  impossible  to 
confer  on  any  one  of  these  two  forms  the  distinction 
of  general  preference.  Indeed,  the  polygamy  of  one 
man  was  evidently  the  product  of  slavery,  confined  to 
certain  exceptional  positions.  In  the  Semitic  patri- 
archal family,  only  the  patriarch  himself,  or  at  best 
a  few  of  his  sons,  practice  polygamy,  the  others  must 
be  satisfied  with  one  wife.  This  is  the  case  to-day 
in  the  whole  Orient.  Polygamy  is  a  privilege  of  the 
wealthy  and  distinguished,  and  is  mainly  realized  by 
purchase  of  female  slaves.  The  mass  of  the  people 
live  in  monogamy.  Polyandry  in  India  and  Thibet  is 
likewise  an  exception.  Its  surely  not  uninteresting 
origin  from  group  marriage  requires  still  closer  In- 
vestigation. In  its  practice  it  seems,  by  the  way, 
much  more  tolerant  than  the  jealous  Harem  establish- 
ment of  the  Mohammedans.  At  least  among  the 
Nairs  of  India,  three,  four  or  more  men  have  indeed 
one  woman  in  common;  but  every  one  of  them  may 


THE  FAMILY  75 

have  a  second  woman  in  common  with  three  or  more 
other  men;  and  in  the  same  way  a  third,  fourth,  etc. 
It  is  strange  that  McLennan  did  not  discover  the  new 
class  of  "club  marriage"  in  these  marital  clubs,  in 
several  of  which  one  may  be  a  member  and  which  he 
himself  describes.  This  marriage  club  business  is, 
however,  by  no  means  actual  polyandry.  It  is  on  the 
contrary,  as  Giraud-Teulon  already  remarks,  a  spe- 
cialized form  of  group  marriage.  The  men  live  in 
polygamy,  the  women  in  polyandry. 

4.    THE  MONOGAMOUS  FAMILY. 

It  develops  from  the  pairing  family,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  during  the  time  of  transition  from  the 
middle  to  the  higher  stage  of  barbarism.  Its  final 
victory  is  one  of  the  signs  of  beginning  civilization. 
^U.9  f^""^<^-^  ^Ti  mnip  snprpmapy  for  fhp.  prononppftfl 
p^ijpose.. of  .breeding  cMldEen  of  indisputable  paternal 
liagage.  TtLe^latter-i^^equired^because  these  children 
shall  later  on  inherit  the  fortune  of jtheir  father.  The 
monogamous  family  is  distinguished  from  the  pairing 
family  by  the  far  greater  durability  of  wedlock,  which 
can  no  longer  be  dissolved  at  the  pleasure  of  either 
party.  As  a  rule,  it  is  only  the  man  who  can  still  dis- 
solve it  and  cast  off  his  wife.  The  privilege  of  con- 
jugal faithlessness  remains  sanctioned  for  men  at 
least  by  custom  (the  Code  Napoleon  concedes  it 
directly  to  them,  as  long  as  they  do  not  bring  their 
concubines  into  the  houses  of  their  wives).  This  privi- 
lege is  more  and  more  enjoyed  with  the  increasing 
development  of  society.  If  the  woman  remembers 
the  ancient  sexual  practices  and  attempts  to  revive 
them,  she  is  punished  more  severely  than  ever. 

The  whole  severity  of  this  new  form  of  the  family 
confronts  us  among  the  Greeks.  While,  as  Marx 
observes,  the  position  of  the  female  gods  in  mythology 
shows  an  earlier  period,  when  women  still  occupied 


76  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

a  freer  and  more  respected  plane,  we  find  woman 
already  degraded  by  the  supremacy  of  man  and  the 
competition  of  slaves  during  the  time  of  the  heroes. 
Read  in  the  Odysseia  how  Telemachos  reproves  and 
silences  his  mother.  The  captured  young  women, 
according  to  Homer,  are  delivered  to  the  sensual  lust 
of  the  victors.  The  leaders  in  the  order  of  their  rank 
select  the  most  beautiful  captives.  The  whole  lliaa 
notoriously  revolves  around  the  quarrel  between 
Achilles  and  Agamemnon  about  such  a  captured 
woman.  In  mentioning  any  hero  of  importance,  the 
captured  girl  sharing  his  tent  and  bed  is  never  omit- 
ted. These  girls  are  also  taken  into  the  hero's  home 
country  and  his  house,  as  Kassandra  by  Agamemnon 
in  Aeschylos.  Boys  born  by  these  female  slaves  re- 
ceive a  small  share  of  the  paternal  heirloom  and  are 
regarded  as  free  men.  Teukros  is  such  an  Illegitimate 
eon  and  may  use  his  father's  name.  The  wife  is  ex- 
pected to  put  up  with  everything,  while  herself  re- 
maining chaste  and  faithful.  Although  the  Greek 
woman  of  heroic  times  is  more  highly  respected  than 
she  of  the  civilized  period,  still  she  is  for  her  husband 
only  the  mother  of  his  legal  heirs,  his  first  house- 
keeper and  the  superintendent  of  the  female  slaves, 
vv'hom  he  can  and  does  make  his  concubines  at  will. 

It  is  this  practice  of  slavery  by  the  side  of  mo- 
nogamy, the  existence  of  young  and  beautiful  female 
slaves  belonging  without  any  restriction  to  their  mas- 
ter, which  from  the  very  beginning  gives  to  monogamy 
the  specific  character  of  being  monogamy  for  women 
only,  but  not  for  men.  And  this  character  remains  to 
this  day. 

For  the  Greeks  of  later  times  we  must  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  Dorians  and  lonians.  The  former, 
with  Sparta  as  their  classic  example,  have  in  many 
respects  still  more  antiquated  marriage  customs  than 
even  Homer  illustrates.    In  Sparta  existed  a  form  of 


THE  FAMILY  11 

the  pairing  family  modified  by  the  contemporaneous 
ideas  of  the  state  and  still  recalling  group  marriage  in 
many  ways.  Sterile  marriages  were  dissolved.  King 
Anaxandridas  (about  650  before  Christ)  took  another 
wife  besides  his  childless  one  and  kept  two  house- 
holds. About  the  same  time  King  Ariston  added  an- 
other wife  to  two  childless  ones,  one  of  which  he 
dismissed.  Furthermore,  several  brothers  could  have 
one  wife  in  common;  a  friend  who  liked  his  friend's 
wife  better  than  his  own  could  share  her  with  him, 
and  it  was  not  considered  indecent  to  place  a  wife  at 
the  disposal  of  a  sturdy  "stallion,"  as  Bismarck  would 
have  said,  even  though  he  might  not  be  a  citizen.  A 
certain  passage  in  Plutarch,  where  a  Spartan  matron 
refers  a  lover,  who  persists  in  making  offers  to  her, 
to  her  husband,  seems  to  indicate— according  to  Schoe- 
mann— even,  a  still  greater  sexual  freedom.  Also 
adultery,  faithlessness  of  a  wife  behind  her  husband's 
back,  was  unheard  of.  On  the  other  hand,  domestic 
slavery  in  Sparta,  at  least  during  the  best  time,  was 
unknown,  and  the  serf  Helots  lived  on  separate 
country  seats.  Hence  there  was  less  temptation  for 
a  Spartan  to  hold  intercourse  with  other  women.  As 
was  to  be  expected  under  such  circumstances,  the 
women  of  Sparta  occupied  a  more  highly  respected 
place  than  those  of  other  Greeks.  Spartan  women 
and  the  Athenian  hetaerae  were  the  only  Greek  women 
of  whom  the  ancients  speak  respectfully  and  whose 
remarks  they  considered  worthy  of  notice. 

Quite  a  different  condition  among  lonians,  whose 
representative  is  Athens.  The  girls  learned  only  to 
spin,  weave  and  sew,  at  the  most  a  little  reading  and 
writing.  Tbey  were  practically  shut  in  and  had  only 
f.he  company  of  other  women. 

The  women's  room  formed  a  separate  part  of  the 
house,  on  the  upper  floor  or  in  a  rear  building,  where 
men,   especially  strangers,  did  not  easily  enter  and 


78  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

whither  the  women  retreated  when  male  visitors 
came.  The  women  did  not  leave  the  house  without 
being  accompanied  by  a  female  slave.  At  home  they 
were  strictly  guarded.  Aristophanes  speaks  of  Molos- 
eian  dogs  that  were  kept  to  frighten  off  adulterers. 
And  at  least  in  the  Asiatic  towns,  eunuchs  were  kept 
for  guarding  women.  Even  at  Herodotus'  time  these 
eunuchs  were  manufactured  for  the  trade,  and  accord- 
ing to  Wachsmuth  not  for  barbarians  alone.  By  Euri- 
pides woman  is  designated  as  "oikurema,"  a  neuter 
signifying  an  object  for  housekeeping,  and  beside  the 
business  of  breeding  children  she  served  to  the 
Athenian  for  nothing  but  his  chief  house  maid.  The 
man  had  his  gymnastic  exercises,  his  public  meet- 
ings, from  which  the  women  were  excluded.  Besides, 
the  man  very  often  had  female  slaves  at  his  disposal, 
and  during  the  most  flourishing  time  of  Athens  an 
extensive  prostitution  which  was  at  least  patronized 
by  the  state.  It  was  precisely  on  the  basis  of  this 
prostitution  that  the  unique  type  of  Ionic  women 
developed;  the  hetaerae.  They  rose  by  esprit  and 
artistic  taste  as  far  above  the  general  level  of  antique 
womanhood  as  the  Spartan  w^omen  by  their  character. 
But  that  it  was  necessary  to  become  a  hetaera  before 
one  could  be  a  woman,  constitutes  the  severest  denun- 
ciation of  the  Athenian  family. 

The  Athenian  family  became  in  the  course  of  time 
the  model  after  which  not  only  the  rest  of  the  lonians, 
but  gradually  all  the  Greeks  at  home  and  abroad 
molded  their  domestic  relations.  Nevertheless,  in 
spite  of  all  seclusion  and  watching,  the  Grecian 
ladies  found  sufficient  opportunity  for  deceiving  their 
husbands.  The  latter  who  would  have  been  ashamed 
of  betraying  any  love  for  their  wives,  found  recrea- 
tion in  all  kinds  of  love  affairs  with  hetaerae.  But 
the  degradation  of  the  women  was  avenged  in  the 
men  and  degraded  them  also,  until  they  sank  into 


THE  FAMILY  79 

the  abomination  of  boy-love.     They  degraded  their 
gods  and  themselves  by  the  myth  of  Ganymedes. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  monogamy,  as  far  as  we 
may  trace  it  in  the  most  civilized  and  most  highly 
developed  nation  of  antiquity.  It^  was_Jby^o^^eans 
^^  f^uit^of_jgdividdal  sex-love  and  had  nothing  tQ_^do 
with  the  latter,  for jthe  marriages  remainjed  asjcon- 
ventional  as  ever.  Monogamy  was  the  first  form  of 
the  family  not^ounded  onrnaturajTlbut^on^con 
conditions,  viz.:  the  jrictory  pf_priva±a ^XDii£rtx_oyer 
primitiv^_and^iatu^^^  c^llectivi^sm.  Supremacy ,  _of 
the  man  in  the  family  andjgeneration  of  children  that 
could  be  his  offspring  alone  andT^VTere^estlned  to  be 
the  heirs  of  his  wealth— these  were  openly  avowed 
by  the  Greeks  to  be  the  sole  objects  of  monogamy. 
For  the  rest  it  was  a  burden  to  them,  a  duty  to  the 
gods,  the  state  and  their  own  ancestors,  a  duty  to  be 
fulfilled  and  no  more.  In  Athens  the  law  enforced 
not  only  the  marriage,  but  also  the  fulfillment  of  a 
minimum  of  the  so-called  matrimonial  duties  on  the 
man's  part. 

Monogamy,  then,  does  by  no  means  enter  history 
as  a  reconciliation  of  man  and  wife  and  still  less  as 
the  highest  form  of  marriage.  On  the  contrary,  it 
enters  as  the  subjugation  of  one  sex  by  the  other,  as 
the  proclamation  of  an  antagonism  between  the 
sexes  unknown  in  all  preceding  history.  In  an  old 
unpublished  manuscript  written  by  Marx  and  myself 
in  1846,  I  find  the  following  passage:  "The  first  di- 
vision of  labor  is  that  of  man  and  wife  in  breeding 
children."  And  to-day  I  may  add:  The  first  class 
antagonism  appearing  in  history  coincides  with  the 
development  of  the  antagonism  of  man  and  wife  in 
monogamy,  and  the  first  class  oppression  with  that 
of  the  female  by  the  male  sex.  Monogamy  was  a 
great  historical  progress.  But  by  the  side  of  slavery 
and  private  property  it  marks  at  the  same  time  that 


8o  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

epoch  which,  reaching  down  to  our  days,  takes  with 
all  progress  also  a  step  backwards,  relatively  speak- 
ing, and  develops  the  welfare  and  advancement  of 
one  by  the  woe  and  submission  of  the  other.  It  is  the 
cellular  form  of  civilized  society  which  enables  us 
to  study  the  nature  of  its  now  fully  developed  con- 
trasts and  contradictions. 

The  old  relative  freedom  of  sexual  intercourse  by 
no  means  disappeared  with  the  victory  of  the  pair- 
ing or  even  of  the  monogamous  family.  "The  old 
conjugal  system,  now  reduced  to  narrower  limits  by 
the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  punaluan  groups, 
still  environed  the  advancing  family,  which  it  was  to 
follow  to  the  verge  of  civilization.  ...  It  finally 
disappeared  in  the  new  form  of  hetaerism,  which  still 
follows  mankind  in  civilization  as  a  dark  shadow 
upon  the  family."* 

By  hetaerism  Morgan  designates  sexual  intercourse 
of  men  with  unmarried  women  outside  of  the  mon- 
ogamous family,  flourishing,  as  is  well  known,  dur- 
ing the  whole  period  of  civilization  in  many  different 
forms  and  tending  more  and  more  to  open  prostitu- 
tion. This  hetaerism  is  directly  derived  from  group 
marriage,  from  the  sacrificial  surrender  of  women 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  right  to  chastity. 
The  surrender  for  money  was  at  first  a  religious  act; 
It  took  place  in  the  temple  of  the  goddess  of  love  and 
the  money  flowed  originally  into  the  treasury  of  the 
temple.  The  hierodulae  of  Anaitis  in  Armenia,  of 
Aphrodite  in  Corinth  and  the  religious  dancing  girls 
of  India  attached  to  the  temples,  the  so-called  baja- 
deres  (derived  from  the  Portuguese  "bailadera," 
dancing  girl),  were  the  flrst  prostitutes.  The  sur- 
render, originally  the  duty  of  every  woman,  was 
later  on  practiced  by  these  priestesses  alone  in  rep- 

•Morgan,  Ancient  Society,  p.  504. 


THE  FAMILY  8l 

rcBentation  of  all  others.  Among  other  nations, 
hetaerlsm  is  derived  from  the  sexual  freedom  per- 
mitted to  girls  before  marriage— also  a  survival  of 
the  group  marriage,  only  transmitted  by  another 
route.  With  the  rise  of  different  property  relations, 
in  the  higher  stage  of  barbarism,  wage  labor  appears 
sporadically  by  the  side  of  slavery,  and  at  the  same 
time  its  unavoidable  companion,  professional  prosti- 
tution of  free  women  by  the  side  of  the  forced  sur- 
render of  female  slaves.  It  is  the  heirloom  be- 
queathed by  group  marriage  to  civilization,  a  gift  as 
ambiguous  as  everything  else  produced  by  ambigu- 
ous, double-faced,  schismatic  and  contradictory  civili- 
zation. Here  monogamy,  there  hetaerism  and  its 
most  extreme  form,  prostitution.  Hetaerism  is  as 
much  a  social  institution  as  all  others.  It  continues 
the  old  sexual  freedom— for  the  benefit  of  the  men. 
In  reality  not  only  permitted,  but  also  assiduously 
practised  by  the  ruling  class,  it  is  denounced  only 
nominally.  Still  in  practice  this  denunciation  strikes 
by  no  means  the  men  who  indulge  in  it,  but  only  the 
women.  These  are  ostracised  and  cast  out  by  society, 
in  order  to  proclaim  once  more  the  fundamental  law 
of  unconditional  male  supremacy  over  the  female 
sex. 

However,  a  second  contradiction  is  thereby  de- 
veloped within  menogamy  itself.  By  the  side  of  the 
husband,  who  is  making  his  life  pleasant  by  hetaer- 
ism, stands  the  neglected  wife.  And  you  cannot  have 
one  side  of  the  contradiction  without  the  other,  just 
as  you  cannot  have  the  whole  apple  after  eating  half 
of  it.  Nevertheless  this  seems  to  have  been  the  idea 
of  the  men,  until  their  wives  taught  them  a  lesson. 
Monogamy  introduces  two  permanent  social  charac- 
ters that  were  formerly  unknown:  the  standing  lover 
of  the  wife  and  the  cuckold.  The  men  had  gained 
the  victory  over  the  women,  but  the  vanquished  mag- 


82  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

nanimously  provided  the  coronation.  In  addition  to 
monogamy  and  hetaerism,  adultery  became  an  un- 
avoidable social  institution— denounced,  severely 
punished,  but  irrepressible.  The  certainty  of  paternal 
parentage  rested  as  of  old  on  moral  conviction  at 
best,  and  in  order  to  solve  the  unreconcilable  contra- 
diction, the  code  Napoleon  decreed  in  its  article  312: 
"L' enfant  congu  pendant  le  mariage  a  pour  p6re  le 
mari;"  the  child  conceived  during  marriage  has  for 
its  father— the  husband.  This  is  the  last  result  of 
three  thousand  years  of  monogamy. 

Thus  we  have  in  the  monogamous  family,  at  least 
in  those  cases  that  remain  true  to  historical  develop- 
ment and  clearly  express  the  conflict  between  man 
and  wife  created  by  the  exclusive  supremacy  of  men, 
a  miniature  picture  of  the  contrasts  and  contradic- 
tions of  society  at  large.  Split  by  class-differences 
since  the  beginning  of  civilization,  society  has  been 
unable  to  reconcile  and  overcome  these  antitheses. 
Of  course,  I  am  referring  here  only  to  those  cases  of 
monogamy,  where  matrimonial  life  actually  remains 
in  accord  with  the  original  character  of  the  whole 
institution,  but  where  the  wife  revolts  against  the 
rule  of  the  man.  Nobody  knows  better  than  your 
German  philistine  that  not  all  marriages  follow  such 
a  course.  He  does  not  understand  how  to  maintain 
the  control  of  his  own  home  any  better  than  that 
of  the  State,  and  his  wife  is,  therefore,  fully  entitled 
to  wearing  the  trousers,  which  he  does  not  deserve. 
But  he  thinks  himself  far  superior  to  his  French 
companion  in  misery,  who  more  frequently  fares  far 
worse. 

The  monogamous  family,  by  the  way,  did  not  every- 
where and  always  appear  in  the  classic  severe  form  it 
had  among  the  Greeks.  Among  the  Romans,  who  as 
future  conquerors  of  the  world  had  a  sharper 
although  less  refined  eye  than  the  Greeks,  the  women 


THE  FAMILY  83 

were  freer  and  more  respected.  A  Roman  believed 
that  the  conjugal  faith  of  his  wife  was  suflaciently 
safeguarded  by  his  power  over  her  life  and  death. 
Moreover,  the  women  could  voluntarily  dissolve  the 
marriage  as  well  as  the  men.  But  the  highest  prog- 
ress in  the  development  of  monogamy  was  doubtless 
due  to  the  entrance  of  the  Germans  into  history, 
probably  because  on  account  of  their  poverty  their 
monogamy  had  not  yet  fully  outgrown  the  pairing 
family.  Three  facts  mentioned  by  Tacitus  favor  this 
conclusion:  In  the  first  place,  although  marriage  was 
held  very  sacred— "they  are  satisfied  with  one  wife, 
the  women  are  protected  by  chastity"— still  polyg- 
amy was  in  use  among  the  distinguished  and  the 
leaders  of  the  tribes,  as  was  the  case  in  the  pairing 
families  of  the  American  Indians.  Secondly,  the 
transition  from  maternal  to  paternal  law  could  have 
taken  place  only  a  short  while  before,  because  the 
mother's  brother— the  next  male  relative  in  the  gens 
by  maternal  law— was  still  considered  almost  a  closer 
relative  than  the  natural  father,  also  in  accordance 
with  the  standpoint  of  the  American  Indians.  The 
latter  furnished  to  Marx,  according  to  his  own  testi- 
mony, the  key  to  the  comprehension  of  German 
primeval  history.  And  thirdly,  the  German  women 
were  highly  respected  and  also  influenced  public 
affairs,  a  fact  directly  opposed  to  monogamic  male 
supremacy.  In  all  these  things  the  Germans  almost 
harmonize  with  the  Spartans,  who,  as  we  saw,  also 
had  not  fully  overcome  the  pairing  family.  Hence  in 
this  respect  an  entirely  new  element  succeeded  to  the 
world's  supremacy  with  the  Germans.  The  new 
monogamy  now  developing  the  ruins  of  the  Ro- 
man world  from  the  mixture  of  nations  endowed  male 
rule  with  a  milder  form  and  accorded  to  women  a 
position  that  was  at  least  outwardly  far  more  re- 
spected and  free  than  classical  antiquity  ever  knew. 


84  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

Not  until  now  was  there  a  possibility  of  developing 
from  monogamy— in  it,  by  the  side  of  it  or  against 
it,  as  the  case  might  be — the  highest  ethical  progress 
we  owe  to  it:  the  modem  individual  sexlove,  un- 
known to  all  previous  ages. 

This  progress  doubtless  arose  from  the  fact  that 
the  Germans  still  lived  in  the  pairing  family  and 
inoculated  monogamy  as  far  as  possible  with  the 
position  of  women  corresponding  to  the  former.  It 
was  in  no  way  due  to  the  legendary  and  wonderfully 
pure  natural  qualities  of  the  Germans.  These  quali- 
ties were  limited  to  the  simple  fact  that  the  pairing 
family  indeed  does  not  create  the  marked  moral  con- 
trasts of  monogamy.  On  the  contrary,  the  Germans, 
especially  those  who  wandered  southeast  among  the 
nomadic  nations  of  the  Black  Sea,  had  greatly  de- 
generated morally.  Beside  the  equestrian  tricks  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  steppe  they  had  also  acquired 
some  very  unnatural  vices.  This  is  expressly  con- 
firmed of  the  Thaifali  by  Ammianus  and  of  the 
Heruli  by  Prokop. 

Although  monogamy  was  the  only  one  of  all  known 
forms  of  the  family  in  which  modern  sexlove  could 
develop,  this  does  not  imply  that  it  developed  exclu- 
sively or  even  principally  as  mutual  love  of  man 
and  wife.  The  very  nature  of  strict  monogamy  under 
man's  rule  excluded  this.  Among  all  historically 
active,  i.  e.,  ruling,  classes  matrimony  remained  what 
it  had  been  since  the  days  of  the  pairing  family— a 
conventional  matter  arranged  by  the  parents.  And 
the  first  historical  form  of  sexlove  as  a  passion,  as  an 
attribute  of  every  human  being  (at  least  of  the  ruling 
classes),  the  specific  character  of  the  highest  form 
of  the  sexual  impulse,  this  first  form,  the  love  of  the 
knights  in  the  middle  ages,  was  by  no  means  matri- 
monial love,  but  quite  the  contrai*y.  In  its  classic 
form,  among  the  Provencals,  it  heads  with  full  sails 


THE  FAMILY  8$ 

for  adultery  and  their  poets  extol  the  latter.  The 
flower  of  ProvenQal  love  poetry,  the  Albas,  de- 
scribe in  glowing  colors  how  the  knight  sleeps  with 
his  adored— the  wife  of  another— while  the  watchman 
outside  calls  him  at  the  first  faint  glow  of  the  morn- 
ing (alba)  and  enables  him  to  escape  unnoticed.  The 
poems  culminate  in  the  parting  scene.  Likewise  the 
Frenchmen  of  the  north  and  also  the  honest  Ger- 
mans adopted  this  style  of  poetry  and  the  manner 
of  knightly  love  corresponding  to  it.  Old  Wolfram 
von  Escheubach  has  left  us  three  wonderful  "day 
songs"  treating  this  same  questionable  subject,  and 
I  like  them  better  than  Lis  three  heroic  epics. 

Civil  matrimony  in  our  day  is  of  two  kinds.  In 
Catholic  countries,  the  parents  provide  a  fitting 
spouse  for  their  son  as  of  old,  and  the  natural  con- 
sequence is  the  full  development  of  the  contradictions 
inherent  to  monogamy:  voluptuous  hetaerism  on  the 
man's  part,  voluptuous  adultery  of  the  woman. 
Probably  the  Catholic  church  has  abolished  divorce 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  had  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, there  was  as  little  help  for  adultery  as  for 
death.  In  Protestant  countries,  again,  it  is  the  cus- 
tom to  give  the  bourgeois  son  more  or  less  liberty 
in  chosing  his  mate.  Hence  a  certain  degree  of  love 
may  be  at  the  bottom  of  such  a  marriage  and  for  the 
sake  of  propriety  this  is  always  assumed,  quite  in 
keeping  with  Protestant  hypocrisy.  In  this  case 
hetaerism  is  carried  on  less  strenuously  and  adultery 
on  the  part  of  the  woman  is  not  so  frequent.  But  as 
human  beings  remain  under  any  form  of  marriage 
what  they  were  before  marrying,  and  as  the  citizens 
of  Protestant  countries  are  mostly  philistines,  this 
Protestant  monogamy  on  the  average  of  the  best 
cases  confines  itself  to  the  community  of  a  leaden 
ennui,  labeled  wedded  bliss.  The  best  mirror  of  these 
two   species  of   marriage  is  the   novel,   the   French 


00  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

novel  for  the  Catholic,  the  German  novel  for  the 
Protestant  brand.  In  both  of  these  novels  they  "get 
one  another:"  in  the  German  novel  the  man  gets 
the  girl,  in  the  French  novel  the  husband  gets  the 
horns.  It  does  not  always  go  without  saying  which 
of  the  two  deserves  the  most  pity.  For  this  reason 
the  tediousness  of  the  German  novels  is  abhorred  as 
much  by  the  French  bourgeois  as  the  "immorality" 
of  the  French  novels  by  the  German  philistine.  Of 
late,  since  Berlin  became  cosmopolitan,  the  German 
novel  begins  to  treat  somewhat  timidly  of  the 
hetaerism  and  adultery  that  a  long  time  ago  became 
familiar  features  of  that  city. 

In  both  cases  the  marriage  is  influenced  by  the 
class  environment  of  the  participants,  and  in  this  re- 
spect it  always  remains  conventional.  This  con- 
ventionalism often  enough  results  in  the  most  pro- 
nounced prostitution— sometimes  of  both  parties,  more 
commonly  of  the  women.  She  is  distinguished  from 
a  courtisane  only  in  that  she  does  not  offer  her 
body  for  money  by  the  hour  like  a  commodity,  but 
sells  it  into  slavery  for  once  and  all.  Fourier's  words 
hold  good  with  respect  to  all  conventional  mar- 
riages: "As  in  grammar  two  negatives  make  one 
affirmative,  so  in  matrimonial  ethics,  two  prostitu- 
tions are  considered  as  one  virtue."  Sexual  love  in 
man's  relation  to  woman  becomes  and  can  become 
the  rule  among  the  oppressed  classes  alone,  among 
the  proletarians  of  our  day— no  matter  whether  this 
relation  is  officially  sanctioned  or  not. 

Here  all  the  fundamental  conditions  of  classic  mo- 
nogamy have  been  abolished.  Here  all  property  is 
missing  and  it  was  precisely  for  the  protection  and 
inheritance  of  this  that  monogamy  and  man  rule  were 
established.  Hence  all  incentive  to  make  this  rule 
felt  is  wanting  here.  More  still,  the  funds  are  miss- 
ing.    Civil  law  protecting  male  rule  applies  only  to 


THE  FAMILY  87 

the  possessing  classes  and  their  intercourse  with 
proletarians.  Law  is  expensive  and  therefore  the 
poverty  of  the  laborer  makes  it  meaningless  for  his 
relation  to  his  wife.  Entirely  different  personal  and 
social  conditions  decide  in  this  case.  And  finally, 
since  the  great  industries  have  removed  women  from 
the  home  to  the  labor  market  and  to  the  factory,  the 
last  remnant  of  man  rule  in  the  proletarian  home  has 
lost  its  ground— except,  perhaps,  a  part  of  the  bru- 
tality against  women  that  has  become  general  since 
the  advent  of  monogamy.  Thus  the  family  of  the 
proletarian  is  no  longer  strictly  monogamous,  even 
with  all  the  most  passionate  love  and  the  most  unal- 
terable loyalty  of  both  parties,  and  in  spite  of  any 
possible  clerical  or  secular  sanction.  Consequently 
the  eternal  companions  of  monogamy,  hetaerism  and 
adultery,  play  an  almost  insignificant  role  here.  The 
woman  has  practically  regained  the  right  of  separa- 
tion, and  if  a  couple  cannot  agree,  they  rather  sep- 
arate. In  short,  the  proletarian  marriage  is  monog- 
amous in  the  etymological  sense  of  the  word,  but  by  no 
means  in  a  historical  sense. 

True,  our  jurists  hold  that  the  progress  of  legisla- 
tion continually  lessens  all  cause  of  complaint  for 
women.  The  modern  systems  of  civil  law  recognize, 
first  that  marriage,  in  order  to  be  legal,  must  be  a 
contract  based  on  voluntary  consent  of  both  parties, 
and  secondly  that  during  marriage  the  relations  of 
both  parties  shall  be  founded  on  equal  rights  and 
duties.  These  two  demands  logically  enforced  will, 
so  they  claim,  give  to  women  everything  they  could 
possibly  ask. 

This  genuinely  juridical  argumentation  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  used  by  the  radical  republican  bur- 
geois  to  cut  short  and  dismiss  the  proletarian.  The 
labor  contract  is  said  to  be  voluntarily  made  by  both 
parties.    But  it  is  considered  as  voluntary  when  the 


60  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

law  places  both  parties  on  equal  terms  on  paper. 
The  power  conferred  on  one  party  by  the  division  of 
classes,  the  pressure  thereby  exerted  on  the  other 
party,  the  actual  economic  relation  of  the  two— all 
this  does  not  concern  the  law.  Again,  during  the 
term  of  the  contract  both  parties  are  held  to  have 
equal  rights,  unless  one  has  expressly  renounced  his 
right.  That  the  economic  situation  forces  the  laborer 
to  give  up  even  the  last  semblance  of  equality,  that 
is  not  the  fault  of  the  law. 

In  regard  to  marriage,  even  the  most  advanced 
law  is  completely  satisfied  after  both  parties  have 
formally  declared  their  willingness.  What  passes 
behind  the  juridical  scenes  where  the  actual  process 
of  living  is  going  on,  and  how  this  willingness  is 
brought  about,  that  cannot  be  the  business  of  the 
law  and  the  jurist.  Yet  the  simplest  legal  compari- 
son should  show  to  the  jurist  what  this  willingness 
really  means.  In  those  countries  where  a  legitimate 
portion  of  the  parental  wealth  is  assured  to  children 
and  where  these  cannot  be  disinherited— in  Germany, 
in  countries  with  French  law,  etc.— the  children  are 
bound  to  secure  the  consent  of  their  parents  for  mar- 
rying. In  countries  with  English  law,  where  the 
consent  of  the  parents  is  by  no  means  a  legal  quali- 
fication of  marriage,  the  parents  have  full  liberty  to 
bequeath  their  wealth  to  anyone  and  may  disinherit 
their  children  at  will.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  among 
classes  having  any  property  to  bequeath  the  freedom 
to  marry  is  not  a  particle  greater  in  England  and 
America  than  in  France  and  Germany. 

The  legal  equality  of  man  and  woman  in  marriage 
is  by  no  means  better  founded.  Their  legal  inequali- 
Ity  inherited  from  earlier  stages  of  society  is  not  the 
cause,  but  the  effect  of  the  economic  oppression  of 
women.  In  the  ancient  communistic  household  com- 
prising many  married  couples  and  their  children,  the 


THE    FAMILY  89 

administration  of  the  household  entrusted  to  women 
was  just  as  much  a  public  function^  a  socially  neces- 
sary industry,  as  the  procuring  of  food  by  men.  In 
the  patriarchal  and  still  more  in  the  monogamous 
family  this  was  changed.  The  administration  of  the 
household  lost  its  public  character.  It  was  no  longer 
a  concern  of  society.  It  became  a  private  service. 
The  woman  became  the  first  servant  of  the  house, 
excluded  from  participation  in  social  production. 
Only  by  the  great  industries  of  our  time  the  access 
to  social  production  was  again  opened  for  women— 
for  proletarian  women  alone,  however.  This  is  done 
in  such  a  manner  that  they  remain  excluded  from 
public  production  and  cannot  earn  anything,  if  they 
fulfill  their  duties  in  the  private  service  of  the  family; 
or  that  they  are  unable  to  attend  to  their  family 
duties,  if  they  wish  to  participate  in  public  indus- 
tries and  earn  a  living  independently.  As  in  the 
factory,  so  women  are  situated  in  all  business  depart- 
ments up  to  the  medical  and  legal  professions.  The 
modern  monogamous  family  is  founded  on  the  open 
or  disguised  domestic  slavery  of  women,  and  modern 
society  is  a  mass  composed  of  molecules  in  the  form 
of  monogamous  families.  In  the  great  majority  of 
cases  the  man  has  to  earn  a  living  and  to  support  his 
family,  at  least  among  the  possessing  classes.  He 
thereby  obtains  a  superior  position  that  has  no  need 
of  any  legal  special  privilege.  In  the  family,  he  is 
the  bourgeois,  the  woman  represents  the  proletariat. 
In  the  industrial  world,  however,  the  specific  charac- 
ter of  the  economic  oppression  weighing  on  the  pro- 
letariat appears  in  its  sharpest  outlines  only  after 
all  special  privileges  of  the  capitalist  class  are  abol- 
ished and  the  full  legal  equality  of  both  classes  is 
established.  A  democratic  republic  does  not  abolish 
the  distinction  between  the  two  classes.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  offers  the  battleground  on  which  this  dis- 


90  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

tinction  can  be  fought  out.  Likewise  the  peculiar 
character  of  man's  rule  over  woman  in  the  modem 
family,  the  necessity  and  the  manner  of  accomplish- 
ing the  real  social  equality  of  the  two,  will  appear  in 
broad  daylight  only  then,  when  both  of  them  will 
enjoy  complete  legal  equality.  It  will  then  be  seen 
that  the  emancipation  of  women  is  primarily  depen- 
dent on  the  re-introduction  of  the  whole  female  sex 
into  the  public  industries.  To  accomplish  this,  the 
monogamous  family  must  cease  to  be  the  industrial 
unit  of  society. 

We  have,  then,  three  main  forms  of  the  family, 
corresponding  in  general  to  the  three  main  stages 
of  human  development.  For  savagery  group  mar- 
riage, for  barbarism  the  pairing  family,  for  civiliza-j 
tion  monogamy  supplemented  by  adultery  and  prosti/ 
tution.  Between  the  pairing  family  and  monogamy 
in  the  higher  stage  of  barbarism,  the  rule  of  men  over 
female  slaves  and  polygamy  is  inserted. 

As  we  proved  by  our  whole  argument,  the  progress 
visible  in  this  chain  of  phenomena  is  connected  with 
the  peculiarity  of  more  and  more  curtailing  the 
sexual  freedom  of  the  group  marriage  for  women, 
but  not  for  men.  And  group  marriage  is  actually 
practised  by  men  to  this  day.  What  is  considered 
a  crime  for  women  and  entails  grave  legal  and  social 
consequences  for  them,  is  considered  honorable  for 
men  or  in  the  worst  case  a  slight  moral  blemish  born 
with  pleasure.  But  the  more  traditional  hetaerism  is 
changed  in  our  day  by  capitalistic  production  and 
conforms  to  it,  the  more  hetaerism  is  transformed 
into  undisguised  prostitution,  the  more  demoralizing 
are  its  effects.  And  it  demoralizes  men  far  more 
than  women.  Prostitution  does  not  degrade  the 
whole  female  sex,  but  only  the  lucliless  women 
that    become    Its    victims,     and    even    those    not 


THE  FAMILY  9^ 

to  tbe  extent  generally  assumed.  But  it  degrades 
the  character  of  the  entire  male  world.  Especially  a 
long  engagement  is  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  a  perfect 
training  school  of  adultery. 

We  are  now  approaching  a  social  revolution,  In 
which  the  old  economic  foundations  of  monogamy  will 
disappear  just  as  surely  as  those  of  its  complement, 
prostitution.  Monogamy  arose  through  the  concen- 
tration of  considerable  wealth  in  one  hand— a  man's 
hand— and  from  the  endeavor  to  bequeath  this 
wealth  to  the  children  of  this  man  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  others.  This  necessitated  monogamy  on  the 
woman's,  but  not  on  the  man's  part.  Hence  this 
monogamy  of  women  in  no  way  hindered  open  or 
secret  polygamy  of  men.  Now,  the  impending  social 
revolution  will  reduce  this  whole  care  of  inheritance 
to  a  minimum  by  changing  at  least  the  overwhelming 
part  of  permanent  and  inheritable  wealth— the  means 
of  production— into  social  property.  Since  monogamy 
was  caused  by  economic  conditions,  will  it  disappear 
when  these  causes  are  abolished? 

One  might  reply,  not  without  reason:  not  only  will 
it  not  disappear,  but  it  will  rather  be  perfectly  real- 
ized. For  with  the  transformation  of  the  means  of 
production  into  collective  property,  wagelabor  will 
also  disappear,  and  with  it  the  proletariat  and  the 
necessity  for  a  certain,  ctatistically  ascertainable 
number  of  women  to  surrender  for  money.  Prostitu- 
tion disappears  and  monogamy,  instead  of  going  out 
of  existence,  at  last  becomes  a  reality— for  men  also. 

At  all  events,  the  situation  will  be  very  much 
changed  for  men.  But  also  that  of  women,  and  of 
all  women,  will  be  considerably  altered.  With  the 
transformation  of  the  means  of  production  into  col- 
lective property  the  monogamous  family  ceases  to  be 
the  economic  unit  of  society.  The  private  household 
changes  to  a  social  industry.    The  care  and  educa- 


9^  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

tion  of  children  becomes  a  public  matter.  Society 
cares  equally  well  for  all  children,  legal  or  illegal. 
This  removes  the  care  about  the  "consequences'* 
which  now  forms  the  essential  social  factor— moral 
and  economic— hindering  a  girl  to  surrender  uncon- 
ditionally to  the  beloved  man.  Will  not  this  be  suf- 
ficient cause  for  a  gradual  rise  of  a  more  uncon- 
ventional intercourse  of  the  sexes  and  a  more  lenient 
public  opinion  regarding  virgin  honor  and  female 
shame?  And  finally,  did  we  not  see  that  in  the 
modern  world  monogamy  and  prostitution,  though 
antitheses,  are  inseparable  and  poles  of  the  same 
social  condition?  Can  prostitution  disappear  without 
engulfing  at  the  same  time  monogamy? 

Here  a  new  element  becomes  active,  an  element 
which  at  best  existed  only  in  the  germ  at  the  time 
when  monogamy  developed:  individual  sexlove. 

Before  the  middle  ages  we  cannot  speak  of  indi- 
vidual sexlove.  It  goes  without  saying  that  personal 
beauty,  intimate  intercourse,  harmony  of  Inclina- 
tions, etc.,  awakened  a  longing  for  sexual  intercourse 
in  persons  of  different  sex,  and  that  it  was  not  ab- 
solutely immaterial  to  men  and  women,  with  whom 
they  entered  into  such  most  intimate  intercourse.  But 
from  such  a  relation  to  our  sexlove  there  is  a  long 
way  yet.  All  through  antiquity  marriages  were 
arranged  for  the  participants  by  the  parents,  and 
the  former  quietly  submitted.  What  little  matri- 
monial love  was  known  to  antiquity  was  not  subjec- 
tive inclination,  but  objective  duty;  not  cause,  but 
corollary  of  marriage.  Love  affairs  in  a  modem 
sense  occurred  in  classical  times  only  outside  of 
official  society.  The  shepherds  whose  happiness  and 
woe  in  love  is  sung  by  Theocritos  and  Moschus,  such 
as  Daphnis  and  Chloe  of  Longos,  all  these  were  slaves 
who  had  no  share  in  the  state  and  in  the  daily  sphere 
of  the  free  citizen.    Outside  of  slave  circles  we  find 


THE  FAMILY  93 

love  affairs  only  as  products  of  disintegration  of  the 
sinking  old  world.  Their  objects  are  women  who 
also  are  standing  outside  of  official  society,  hetaerae 
that  are  either  foreigners  or  liberated  slaves:  in 
Athens  since  the  beginning  of  its  decline,  in  Rome  at 
the  time  of  the  emperors.  If  love  affairs  really  oc- 
curred between  free  male  and  female  citizens,  it  was 
only  in  the  form  of  adultery.  And  to  the  classical 
love  poet  of  antiquity,  the  old  Anakreon,  sexlove  in 
our  sense  was  so  immaterial,  that  he  did  not  even 
care  a  fig  for  the  sex  of  the  beloved  being. 

Our  sexlove  is  essentially  different  from  the  simple 
sexual  craving,  the  Eros,  of  the  ancients.  In  the 
first  place  it  presupposes  mutual  love.  In  this  respect 
woman  is  the  equal  of  man,  while  in  the  antique  Eros 
her  permission  is  by  no  means  always  asked.  In  the 
second  place  our  sexlove  has  such  a  degree  of  in- 
tensity and  duration  that  in  the  eyes  of  both  parties 
lack  of  possession  and  separation  appear  as  a  great, 
if  not  the  greatest,  calamity.  In  order  to  possess  one 
another  they  play  for  high  stakes,  even  to  the  point  of 
risking  their  lives,  a  thing  heard  of  only  in  adultery 
during  the  classical  age.  And  finally  a  new  moral 
standard  is  introduced  for  judging  sexual  intercourse. 
We  not  only  ask:  "Was  it  legal  or  illegal?"  but  also: 
"Was  it  caused  by  mutual  love  or  not?"  Of  course, 
this  new  standard  meets  with  no  better  fate  in 
feudal  or  bourgeois  practice  than  all  other  moral  stan- 
dards—it is  simply  ignored.  But  neither  does  it  fare 
worse.  It  is  recognized  just  as  much  as  the  others— 
In  theory,  on  paper.  And  that  is  all  we  can  expect 
at  present. 

W^here  antiquity  left  off  with  its  attempts  at  sexual 
love,  there  the  middle  ages  resumed  the  thread:  with 
adultery.  We  have  already  described  the  love  of  the 
knights  that  invented  the  day  songs.  From  this  love 
endeavoring  to  break  through  the  bonds  of  marriage 


94  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

to  the  love  destined  to  found  marriage,  there  is  a 
long  distance  which  was  never  fully  traversed  by  the 
knights.  Even  in  passing  on  from  the  frivolous  Ro- 
manic race  to  the  virtuous  Germans,  we  find  in  the 
Nibelungen  song  Kriemhild,  who  secretly  is  no  less 
in  love  with  Siegfried  than  he  with  her,  meekly  reply- 
ing to  Gunther's  announcement  that  he  has  pledged 
her  in  troth  to  a  certain  knight  whom  he  does  not 
name:  "You  need  not  beg  for  my  consent;  as  you 
will  demand,  so  I  shall  ever  be;  whomever  you,  sir, 
will  select  for  my  husband,  I  shall  willingly  take  in 
troth."  It  does  not  enter  her  head  at  all  that  her 
love  could  find  any  consideration.  Gunther  asks  for 
Brunhild,  Etzel  for  Kriemhild  without  ever  having 
seen  one  another.  The  same  is  true  of  the  suit  of 
Guti'un  Sigebant  of  Ireland  for  the  Norwegian  Ute 
and  of  Hetel  of  Hegelingen  for  Hilda  of  Ireland. 
When  Siegfried  of  Morland,  Hartmut  of  Oranien  and 
Herwig  of  Sealand  court  Gutrun,  then  it  happens  for 
the  first  time  that  the  lady  voluntarily  decides,  favor- 
ing the  last  named  knight.  As  a  rule  the  bride  of  the 
young  prince  is  selected  by  his  parents.  Only  when 
the  latter  are  no  longer  alive,  he  chooses  his  own 
bride  with  the  advice  of  the  great  feudal  lords  who 
in  all  cases  of  this  kind  have  a  decisive  voice.  Nor 
could  it  be  otherwise.  For  the  knight  and  the  baron 
as  well  as  for  the  ruler  of  the  realm  himself,  marriage 
is  a  political  act,  an  opportunity  for  increasing  their 
power  by  new  federations.  The  interest  of  the  house 
must  decide,  not  the  arbitrary  inclination  of  the 
individual.  How  could  love  have  a  chance  to  decide 
the  question  of  marriage  in  the  last  instance  under 
such  conditions? 

The  same  held  good  for  the  bourgeois  of  the  me- 
dieval towns,  the  members  of  the  guilds.  Precisely 
the  privileges  protcting  them,  the  clauses  and  restric- 
tions of  the  guild  charters,  the  artificial  lines  of  di- 


THE  FAMILY  95 

vision  separating  them  legally,  here  from  the  other 
guilds,  there  from  their  journeymen  and  apprentices, 
drew  a  sufficiently  narrow  circle  for  the  selection  of 
a  fitting  bourgeois  spouse.  Under  such  a  complicated 
system,  the  question  of  fitness  was  unconditionally 
decided,  not  by  individual  inclination,  but  by  family 
interests. 

In  the  overwhelming  majority  of  cases  the  mar-' 
riage  contract  thus  remained  to  the  end  of  the  middle 
ages  what  it  had  been  from  the  outset:  a  matter  that 
was  not  decided  by  the  parties  most  interested.  In 
the  beginning  one  was  already  married  from  his 
birth— married  to  a  whole  group  of  the  other  sex. 
In  the  later  forms  of  group  marriage,  a  similar  rela- 
tion was  probably  maintained,  only  under  a  continual 
narrowing  of  the  group.  In  the  pairing  family  it  is 
the  rule  for  mothers  to  exchange  mutual  pledges  for 
the  marriage  of  their  children.  Here  also  the  main 
consideration  is  given  to  new  ties  of  relationship  that 
will  strengthen  the  position  of  the  young  couple  in 
the  gens  and  the  tribe.  And  when  with  the  prepon- 
derance of  private  property  over  collective  property 
and  with  the  interest  for  inheritance  paternal  law  and 
monogamy  assumed  the  supremacy,  then  marriage 
became  still  more  dependent  on  economic  considera- 
tions. The  form  of  purchase  marriage  disappears, 
but  the  essence  of  the  transaction  is  more  and  more 
intensified,  so  that  not  only  the  woman,  but  also  the 
man  have  a  fixed  price— not  according  to  his  quali- 
ties, but  to  his  wealth.  That  mutual  fondness  of  the 
marrying  parties  should  be  the  one  factor  dominating 
all  others  had  always  been  unheard  of  in  the  practice 
of  the  ruling  classes.  Such  a  thing  occurred  at  best 
in  romances  or— among  the  oppressed  classes  that 
were  not  counted. 

This   was   the   situation   encountered  by  capitalist 
production  when  it  began  to  prepare,  since  the  epoch 


96  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

of  geographical  discoveries,  for  the  conquest  of  the 
world  by  international  trade  and  manufacture.  One 
would  think  that  this  mode  of  making  the  marriage 
contract  would  have  been  extremely  acceptable  to 
capitalism,  and  it  was.  And  yet— the  irony  of  fate 
is  inexplicable— capitalist  production  had  to  make  the 
decisive  breach  through  this  mode.  By  changing  all 
things  into  commodities,  it  dissolved  all  inherited  and 
traditional  relations  and  replaced  time  hallowed  cus- 
tom and  historical  right  by  purchase  and  sale,  by  the 
"free  contract."  And  the  English  jurist,  H.  S.  Maine, 
thought  he  had  made  a  stupendous  discovery  by  say- 
ing that  our  whole  progress  over  former  epochs  con- 
sisted in  arriving  from  status  to  contract,  from  in- 
herited to  voluntarily  contracted  conditions.  So  far 
as  this  is  correct,  it  had  already  been  mentioned  in 
the  Communist  Manifesto. 

But  in  order  to  make  contracts,  people  must  have 
full  freedom  over  their  persons,  actions  and  posses- 
sions. They  must  furthermore  be  on  terms  of  mutual 
equality.  The  creation  of  these  "free"  and  "equal" 
people  was  precisely  one  of  the  main  functions  of 
capitalistic  production.  What  though  this  was  done 
at  first  in  a  half-conscious  way  and,  moreover,  in  a 
religious  disguise?  Since  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinist 
reformation  the  thesis  was  accepted  that  a  human 
being  is  fully  responsible  for  his  actions  only  then, 
when  these  actions  were  due  to  full  freedom  of  will. 
And  it  was  held  to  be  a  moral  duty  to  resist  any  com- 
pulsion for  an  immoral  action.  How  did  this  agree 
with  the  prevailing  practice  of  match-making?  Mar- 
riage according  to  bourgeois  conception  was  a  con- 
tract, a  legal  business  affair,  and  the  most  important 
one  at  that,  because  it  decided  the  weal  and  woe  of 
body  and  spirit  of  two  beings  for  life.  At  that  time 
the  agreement  was  formally  voluntary:  without  the 
consent  of  the  contracting  parties  nothing  could  be 


THE  FAMILY  97 

done.  But  it  was  only  too  well  known  how  this  con- 
sent was  obtained  and  who  were  really  the  contract- 
ing parties.  If,  however,  perfect  freedom  of  decision 
is  demanded  for  all  other  contracts,  why  not  for  this 
one?  Did  not  the  two  young  people  who  were  to  be 
coupled  together  have  the  right  freely  to  dispose  of 
themselves,  of  their  bodies  and  the  organs  of  these? 
Had  not  sexual  love  become  the  custom  through  the 
knights  and  was  not,  in  opposition  to  knightly  adul- 
tery, the  love  of  married  couples  its  proper  bourgeois 
form?  And  if  it  was  the  duty  of  married  couples 
to  love  one  -another,  was  it  not  just  as  much  the 
duty  of  lovers  to  marry  each  other  and  nobody  else? 
Stood  not  the  right  of  lovers  higher  than  the  right  of 
parents,  relatives  and  other  customary  marriage 
brokers  and  matrimonial  agents?  If  the  right  of  free 
personal  investigation  made  its  way  unchecked  into 
the  church  and  religion,  how  could  it  bear  with  the 
insupportable  claims  of  the  older  generation  on  the 
body,  soul,  property,  happiness  and  misfortune  of 
the  younger  generation? 

These  questions  had  to  be  raised  at  a  time  when 
all  the  old  ties  of  society  were  loosened  and  all  tra- 
ditional conceptions  tottering.  The  size  of  the  world 
had  increased  tenfold  at  a  bound.  Instead  of  one 
quadrant  of  one  hemisphere,  the  whole  globe  now 
spread  before  the  eyes  of  West  Europeans  who  has- 
tened to  take  possession  of  the  other  seven  quadrants. 
And  the  thousand-year-old  barriers  of  conventional 
medieval  thought  fell  like  the  old  narrow  obstacles  to 
marriage.  An  infinitely  wider  horizon  opened  out 
before  the  outer  and  inner  eyes  of  humanity.  What 
mattered  the  well-meaning  propriety,  what  the  hon- 
orable privilege  of  the  guild  overcome  through  gen- 
erations to  the  young  man  tempted  by  the  gold  and 
silver  mines  of  Mexico  and  Potosi? 

It  was  the  knight  errant  time  of  the  bourgeoisie. 


98  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

It  had  its  own  romances  and  love  dreams,  but  on  a 
bourgeois  footing  and,  in  the  last  instance,  with 
bourgeois  aims. 

Thus  it  came  about  that  the  rising  bourgeoisie  more 
and  more  recognized  the  freedom  of  contracting  in 
marriage  and  carried  it  through  in  the  manner  de- 
scribed above,  especially  in  Protestant  countries, 
where  existing  institutions  were  most  strongly 
shaken.  Marriage  remained  class  marriage,  but 
within  the  class  a  certain  freedom  of  choice  was  ac- 
corded to  the  contracting  parties.  And  on  paper,  In 
moral  theory  as  in  poetical  description,  nothing  was 
more  unalterably  established  than  the  idea  that  every 
marriage  was  immoral  unless  founded  on  mutual  Hex- 
love  and  perfectly  free  agreement  of  husband  and 
wife.  In  short,  the  love  match  was  proclaimed  as  a 
human  right,  not  only  as  droit  de  Thomme— map's 
right— but  also  for  once  as  droit  de  femme— woman's 
right. 

However,  this  human  right  differed  from  all  other 
BO-called  human  rights  in  one  respect.  While  in 
practice  other  rights  remained  the  privileges  of  the 
ruling  class,  the  bourgeoisie,  and  were  directly  or 
indirectly  curtailed  for  proletarians,  the  irony  of 
history  once  more  asserted  itself  in  this  case.  The 
ruling  class  remains  subject  to  well-known  economic 
influences  and,  therefore,  shows  marriage  by  free 
selection  only  in  exceptional  cases.  But  among  the 
oppressed  class,  love  matches  are  the  rule,  as  we 
have  seen. 

Hence  the  full  freedom  of  marriage  can  become 
general  only  after  all  minor  economic  considerations, 
that  still  exert  such  a  powerful  influence  on  the  choice 
of  a  mate  for  life,  have  been  removed  by  the  aboli- 
tion of  capitalistic  production  and  of  the  property 
relations  created  by  it.  Then  no  other  motive  will 
remain  but  mutual  fondness. 


THE  FAMILY  99 

Since  sexlove  is  exclusive  by  its  very  nature— 
although  this  exclusiveness  is  at  present  realized  for 
women  alone— marriage  founded  on  sexlove  must  be 
monogamous.  We  have  seen  that  Bachofen  vras 
perfectly  right  in  regarding  the  progress  from  group 
marriage  to  monogamy  mainly  as  the  work  of  women. 
Only  the  advance  from  the  pairing  family  to  mo- 
nogamy must  be  charged  to  the  account  of  men. 
This  advance  implied,  historically,  a  deterioration  in 
the  position  of  women  and  a  greater  opportunity  for 
men  to  be  faithless.  Remove  the  economic  consider- 
ations that  now  force  women  to  submit  to  the  cus- 
tomary disloyalty  of  men,  and  you  will  place  women 
on  a  equal  footing  with  men.  All  present  experi- 
ences prove  that  this  will  tend  much  more  strongly 
to  make  men  truly  monogamous,  than  to  make  women 
polyandrous. 

However,  those  peculiarities  that  were  stamped 
upon  the  face  of  monogamy  by  its  rise  through  prop- 
erty relations,  will  decidedly  vanish,  namely  the 
supremacy  of  men  and  the  indissolubility  of  mar- 
riage. The  supremacy  of  man  in  marriage  is  simply 
the  consequence  of  his  economic  superiority  and  will 
fall  with  the  abolition  of  the  latter. 

The  indissolubility  of  marriage  is  partly  the  conse- 
quence of  economic  conditions,  under  which  monog- 
amy arose,  partly  tradition  from  the  time  where  the 
connection  between  this  economic  situation  and 
monogamy,  not  yet  clearly  understood,  was  carried 
to  extremes  by  religion.  To-day,  it  has  been  per- 
forated a  thousand  times.  If  marriage  founded  on 
love  is  alone  moral,  then  it  follows  that  marriage  is 
moral  only  as  long  as  love  lasts.  The  duration  of  an 
attack  of  individual  sexlove  varies  considerably  ac- 
cording to  individual  disposition,  especially  in  men. 
A  positive  cessation  of  fondness  or  its  replacement 
by  a  new  passionate  love  makes  a  separation  a  bless- 


100  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

Ing  for  both  parties  and  for  society.  But  humanity 
will  be  spared  the  useless  wading  through  the  mire 
of  a  divorce  case. 

What  we  may  anticipate  about  the  adjustment  of 
sexual  relations  after  the  impending  downfall  of  capi- 
talist production  is  mainly  of  a  negative  nature  and 
mostly  confined  to  elements  that  will  disappear.  But 
what  will  be  added  V  That  will  be  decided  after  a 
new  generation  has  come  to  maturity:  a  race  of  men 
who  never  in  their  lives  have  had  any  occasion  for 
buying  with  money  or  other  economic  means  of 
power  the  surrender  of  a  woman;  a  race  of  women 
who  have  never  had  any  occasion  for  surrendering  to 
any  man  for  any  other  reason  but  love,  or  for  refus- 
ing to  surrender  to  their  lover  from  fear  of  economic 
consequences.  Once  such  people  are  in  the  world, 
they  will  not  give  a  moment's  thought  to  what  we  to- 
day believe  should  be  their  course.  They  will  follow 
their  own  practice  and  fashion  their  own  public  opin- 
ion about  the  Individual  practice  of  every  person- 
only  this  and  nothing  more. 

But  let  us  return  to  Morgan  from  whom  we  moved 
away  a  considerable  distance.  The  his-torical  investi- 
gation of  social  institutions  developed  during  the  pe- 
riod of  civilization  exceeds  the  limits  of  his  book. 
Hence  the  vicissitudes  of  monogamy  during  this  epoch 
occupy  him  very  briefly.  He  also  sees  in  the  further 
development  of  the  monogamous  family  a  progress, 
an  approach  to  perfect  equality  of  the  sexes,  without 
considering  this  aim  fully  realized.  But  he  says: 
"When  the  fact  is  accepted  that  the  family  has 
passed  through  four  successive  forms,  and  is  now  in 
a  fifth,  the  question  at  once  arises  whether  this  form 
can  be  permanent  in  the  future.  The  only  answer 
that  can  be  given  is  that  it  must  advance  as  society 
advances,  and  and  change  as  society  changes,  even 
as  it  has  done  in  the  past.     It  is  the  creature  of  the 


THE  FAMILY  lOI 

social  system,  and  will  reflect  its  culture.  As  the 
monogamian  family  has  improved  greatly  since  the 
commencement  of  civilization,  and  very  sensibly  in 
modern  times,  it  is  at  least  supposable  that  it  is 
capable  of  still  farther  improvement  until  the 
equality  of  the  sexes  is  attained.  Should  the  mo- 
nogamian family  in  the  distant  future  fail  to  answer 
the  requirements  of  society,  assuming  the  continuous 
progress  of  civilization,  it  is  impossible  to  predict  the 
nature  of  its  successor." 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  IROQUOIS  GEN«. 

We  now  come  to  another  discovery  of  Morgan  that 
is  at  least  as  important  as  the  reconstruction  of  the 
primeval  form  of  the  family  from  the  systems  of 
kinship.  It  is  the  proof  that  the  sex  organizations 
within  the  tribe  of  North  American  Indians,  desig- 
nated by  animal  names,  are  essentially  identical  with 
the  genea  of  the  Greeks  and  the  gentes  of  the  Ro- 
mans; that  the  American  form  is  the  original  from 
which  the  Greek  and  Roman  forms  were  later  de- 
rived; that  the  whole  organization  of  Greek  and 
Roman  society  during  primeval  times  in  gens,  phratry 
and  tribe  finds  its  faithful  parallel  in  that  of  the 
American  Indians;  that  the  gens  is  an  institution 
common  to  all  barbarians  up  to  the  time  of  civiliza- 
tion—at least  so  far  as  our  present  sources  of  in- 
formation reach.  This  demonstration  has  cleared  at 
a  single  stroke  the  most  difficult  passages  of  re- 
motest ancient  Greek  and  Roman  history.  At  the 
same  time  it  has  given  us  unexpected  information 
concerning  the  fundamental  outlines  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  society  in  primeval  times— before  the  intro- 
duction of  the  state.  Simple  as  the  matter  is  after 
we  have  once  found  it  out,  still  it  was  only  lately 
discovered  by  Morgan.  In  his  work  of  1871  he  had 
not  yet  unearthed  this  mystery.  Its  revelation  has 
completely  silenced  for  the  time  being  those  generally 
so  overconfident  English  authorities  on  primeval  his- 
tory. 

The  Latin  word  gens,  used  by  :Morgan  generally  for 
the  designation  of  this  sex  organization,  is  derived, 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  103 

like  the  equivalent  Greek  word  genos,  from  the  com- 
mon Aryan  root  gan,  signifying  to  beget.  Gens,  genos, 
Sanskrit  dschanas,  Gothic  kuni,  ancient  Norse  and 
Anglesaxon  kyn,  English  kin,  Middle  High  German 
kiinne,  all  signify  lineage,  descent.  Gens  in  Latin, 
genos  in  Greek,  specially  designate  that  sex  organiza- 
tion which  boasted  of  common  descent  (from  a  com- 
mon sire)  and  was  united  into  a  separate  community 
by  certain  social  and  religious  institutions,  but  the 
origin  and  nature  of  which  nevertheless  remained 
obscure  to  all  our  historians. 

Elsewhere,  in  speaking  Oji  the  Punaluan  family,  we 
saw  how  the  gens  was  constituted  in  its  original 
form.  It  consisted  of  all  individuals  who  by  means 
Qf  the  Punaluan  marriage  and  in  conformity  with  the 
conceptions  necessarily  arising  in  It  made  up  the 
recognized  offspring  of  a  certain  ancestral  mother, 
the  founder  of  that  gens.  Since  fatherhood  is  un- 
certain in  this  form  of  the  family,  female  lineage  is 
alone  valid.  And  as  brothers  must  not  marry  their 
sisters,  but  only  women  of  foreign  descent,  the  chil- 
dred  bred  from  these  foreign  women  do  not  belong  to 
the  gens,  according  to  maternal  law.  Hence  only 
the  offspring  of  the  daughters  of  every  generation 
remain  in  the  same  sex  organization.  The  descen- 
dants of  the  sons  are  transferred  to  the  gentes  of  the 
new  mothers.  What  becomes  of  this  group  of  kinship 
when  it  constitutes  itself  a  separate  group,  distinct 
from  similar  groups  in  the  same  tribe? 

As  the  classical  form  of  this  original  gens  Morgan 
selects  that  of  the  Iroquois,  more  especially  that  of 
the  Seneca  tribe.  This  tribe  has  eight  gentes  named 
after  animals:  1.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver. 
5.  Deer.  6,  Snipe.  7.  Heron.  8.  Hawk.  Every  gens 
observes  the  following  customs: 

1.  The  gens  elects  its  sachem  (official  head  during 
peace)  and  its  chief  (leader  in  war).     The    sachem 


104  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

must  be  selected  within  the  gens  and  his  office  was 
in  a  sense  hereditary.  It  had  to  be  filled  immedi- 
ately after  a  vacancy  occurred.  The  chief  could 
be  selected  outside  of  the  gens,  and  his  office  could 
even  be  temporarily  vacant.  The  son  never  followed 
his  father  in  the  office  of  sachem,  because  the  Iroquois 
observed  maternal  law,  in  consequence  of  which  the 
son  belonged  to  another  gens.  But  the  brother  or  the 
son  of  a  sister  was  often  elected  as  a  successor.  Men 
and  women  both  voted  in  elections.  The  election, 
however,  had  to  be  confirmed  by  the  other  seven 
gentes,  and  then  only  the  sachem-elect  was  solemnly 
invested,  by  the  common  council  of  the  whole  Iro- 
quois federation.  The  significance  of  this  will  be 
seen  later.  The  power  of  the  sachem  within  the 
tribe  was  of  a  paternal,  purely  moral  nature.  He 
had  no  means  of  coercion  at  his  command.  He  was 
besides  by  virtue  of  his  office  a  member  of  the  tribal 
council  of  the  Senecas  and  of  the  federal  council  of 
the  whole  Iroquois  nation.  The  Chief  had  the  right 
to  command  only  in  times  of  war. 

2.  The  gens  can  retire  the  sachem  and  the  chief  at 
will.  This  again  is  done  by  men  and  women  jointly. 
The  retired  men  are  considered  simple  warriors  and 
private  persons  like  all  others.  The  tribal  council, 
by  the  way,  can  also  retire  the  sachems,  even  against 
the  will  of  the  tribe. 

3.  No  member  is  permitted  to  marry  within  the 
gens.  This  is  the  fundamental  rule  of  the  gens,  the 
tie  that  holds  it  together.  It  is  the  negative  expres- 
sion of  the  very  positive  blood  relationship,  by  vir- 
tue of  which  the  individuals  belonging  to  it  become  a 
gens.  By  the  discovery  of  this  simple  fact  Morgan 
for  the  first  time  revealed  the  nature  of  the  gens. 
How  little  the  gens  had  been  understood  before  him 
is  proven  by  former  reports  on  savages  and  bar- 
barians, in  which  the  different  organizations  of  which 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  IO5 

the  gentile  order  is  composed  are  jumbled  together 
without  understanding  and  distinction  as  tribe,  clan, 
thum,  etc.  Sometimes  it  is  stated  that  intermarry- 
ing within  these  organizations  is  forbidden.  This 
gave  rise  to  the  hopeless  confusion,  in  which  Mc- 
Lennan could  pose  as  Napoleon  and  establish  order 
by  the  decree:  All  tribes  are  divided  into  those  that 
forbid  intermarrying  (exogamous)  and  those  that  per- 
mit it  (endogamous).  And  after  he  had  thus  made 
confusion  worse  confounded,  he  could  indulge  in  deep 
meditations  which  of  his  two  preposterous  classes 
was  the  older:  exogamy  or  endogamy.  By  the  dis- 
covery of  the  gens  founded  on  affinity  of  blood  and 
the  resulting  impossibility  of  its  members  to  inter- 
marry, this  nonsense  found  a  natural  end.  It  is  self 
understood  that  the  marriage  interdict  within  the 
gens  was  strictly  observed  at  the  stage  in  which  we 
find  the  Iroquois. 

4.  The  property  of  deceased  members  fell  to  the 
share  of  the  other  gentiles;  it  had  to  remain  in  the 
gens.  In  view  of  the  insignificance  of  the  objects  an 
Iroquois  could  leave  behind,  the  nearest  gentile  rela- 
tions divided  the  heritage.  Was  the  deceased  a  man, 
then  his  natural  brothers,  sisters  and  the  brothers  of 
the  mother  shared  in  his  property. ,  Was  it  a  woman, 
then  her  children  and  natural  sisters  shared,  but  not 
her  brothers.  For  this  reason  husband  and  wife 
could  not  inherit  from  one  another,  nor  the  children 
from  the  father. 

5.  The  gentile  members  owed  to  each  other  help, 
protection  and  especially  assistance  in  revenging  in- 
jury inflicted  by  strangers.  The  individual  relied 
for  his  protection  on  the  gens  and  could  be  assured 
of  it.  Whoever  injured  the  individual,  injured  the 
whole  gens.  From  this  blood  kinship  arose  the  obli- 
gation to  blood  revenge  that  was  unconditionally  rec- 
ognized by  the  Iroquois.    If  a  stranger  killed  a  gentile 


106  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

member,  the  whole  gens  of  the  slain  man  was 
pledged  to  .revenge  his  death.  First  mediation  was 
tried.  The  gens  of  the  slayer  deliberated  and  offered 
to  the  gentile  council  of  the  slain  propositions  for 
atonement,  consisting  generally  in  expressions  of 
regret  and  presents  of  considerable  value.  If  these 
were  accepted,  the  matter  was  settled.  In  the  oppo- 
site case  the  injured  gens  appointed  one  or  more  aven- 
gers who  were  obliged  to  pursue  the  slayer  and  to 
kill  him.  If  they  succeeded,  the  gens  of  the  slayer 
had  no  right  to  complain.    The  account  was  squared. 

6.  The  gens  had  certain  distinct  names  or  series  of 
names,  which  no  other  gens  in  the  whole  tribe  could 
use,  so  that  the  name  of  the  individual  indicated  to 
what  gens  he  belonged.  A  gentile  name  at  the  same 
time  bestowed  gentile  rights. 

7.  The  gens  may  adopt  strangers  who  thereby  are 
adopted  into  the  whole  tribe.  The  prisoners  of  war 
who  were  not  killed  became  by  adoption  into  a  gens 
tribal  members  of  the  Senecas  and  thus  received  full 
gentile  and  tribal  rights.  The  adoption  took  place 
on  the  motion  of  some  gentile  members,  of  men  who 
accepted  the  stranger  as  a  brother  or  sister,  of  women 
who  accepted  him  as  a  child.  The  solemn  introduc- 
tion into  the  gens  was  necessary  to  confirm  the  adop- 
tion. Frequently  certain  gentes  that  had  shrunk  ex- 
ceptionally were  thus  strengthened  by  mass  adop- 
tions from  another  gens  with  the  consent  of  the  lat- 
ter. Among  the  Iroquois  the  solemn  introduction  into 
the  gens  took  place  in  a  public  meeting  of  the  tribal 
council,  whereby  it  actually  became  a  religious  cere- 
mony. 

The  existence  of  special  religious  celebrations 
among  Indian  gentes  can  hardly  be  demonstrated. 
But  the  religious  rites  of  the  Indians  are  more  or  less 
connected  with  the  gens.  At  the  six  annual  religious 
festivals  of  the  Iroquois  the  sachems  and  chiefs  of 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  10? 

the  different  gentes  were  added  to  the  "Keepers  of 
the  Faith"  and  had  the  functions  of  priests. 

9.  The  gens  had  a  common  burial  place.  Among 
the  Iroquois  of  the  State  of  New  York,  who  are 
crowded  by  white  men  all  around  them,  the  burial 
place  has  disappeared,  but  it  existed  formerly. 
Among  other  Indians  it  is  still  in  existence,  e.  g., 
among  the  Tuscaroras,  near  relatives  of  the  Iroquois, 
where  every  gens  has  a  row  by  itself  in  the  burial 
place,  although  they  are  Christians.  The  mother  is 
buried  in  the  same  row  as  her  children,  but  not  the 
father.  And  among  the  Iroquois  the  whole  gens  of 
the  deceased  attends  the  funeral,  prepares  the  grave 
and  provides  the  addresses,  etc. 

10.  The  gens  had  a  council,  the  democratic  assem- 
bly of  all  male  and  female  gentiles  of  adult  age,  all 
with  equal  suffrage.  This  council  elected  and  de- 
posed its  sachems  and  chiefs;  likewise  the  other 
"Keepers  of  the  Faith."  It  deliberated  on  gifts  of 
atonement  or  blood  revenge  for  murdered  gentiles 
and  it  adopted  strangers  into  the  gens.  In  short,  it 
was  the  sovereign  power  in  the  gens. 

The  following  are  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
typical  Indian  gens,  according  to  Morgan:  "All  the 
members  of  an  Iro(iuois  gens  were  personally  free, 
and  they  were  bound  to  defend  each  other's  freedom; 
they  were  equal  in  privileges  and  in  personal  rights, 
the  sachems  and  chiefs  claiming  no  superiority;  and 
they  were  a  brotherhood  bound  together  by  ties  of 
kin.  Liberty,  equality  and  fraternity,  though  never 
formulated,  were  cardinal  principles  of  the  gens. 
These  facts  are  material,  because  the  gens  was  the 
unit  of  a  social  and  governmental  system,  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  Indian  society  was  organized.  A 
structure  composed  of  such  units  would  of  necessity 
bear  the  impress  of  their  character,  for  as  the  unit, 
80  the  compound,     It  serves  to  explain  that  sense 


I08  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

Of  Independence  and  personal  dignity  universally  aif 
attribute  of  Indian  cbaracter." 

At  the  time  of  the  discovery  the  Indians  of  entire 
North  America  were  organized  in  gentes  by  ma- 
ternal law.  Only  "in  some  tribes,  as  among  the  Da- 
kotas,  the  gentes  had  fallen  out;  in  others  as  among 
the  Ojibwas,  the  Omahas  and  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan, 
descent  had  been  changed  from  the  female  to  the 
male  line." 

Among  many  Indian  tribes  with  more  than  five  or 
six  gentes  we  find  three,  four  or  more  gentes  united 
Into  a  separate  group,  called  phratry  by  Morgan  in 
accurate  translation  of  the  Indian  name  by  its  Greek 
equivalent.  Thus  the  Senecas  have  two  phratries, 
the  first  comprising  gentes  one  to  four,  the  second 
gentes  five  to  eight.  Closer  investigation  shows  that 
these  phratries  generally  represent  the  original  gentes 
that  formed  the  tribe  in  the  beginning.  For  the  mar- 
riage interdict  necessitated  the  existence  of  at  least 
two  gentes  in  a  tribe  in  order  to  realize  its  separate 
existence.  As  the  iribe  increased,  every  gens  seg- 
mented into  two  or  more  new  gentes,  while  the  orig- 
inal gens  comprising  all  the  daughter  gentes,  lived  on 
In  the  phratry.  Among  the  Senecas  and  most  of  the 
other  Indians  "the  gentes  in  the  same  phratry  are 
brother  gentes  to  each  other,  and  cousin  gentes  to 
those  of  the  other  phratry"— terms  that  have  a  very 
real  and  expressive  meaning  in  the  American  system 
of  kinship,  as  we  have  seen.  Originally  no  Seneca 
was  allowed  to  marry  within  his  phratry,  but  this 
custom  has  long  become  obsolete  and  Is  now  confined 
to  the  gens.  According  to  the  tradition  among  the 
Senecas,  the  bear  and  the  deer  were  the  two  original 
gentes,  from  which  the  others  were  formed  by  seg- 
mentation. After  this  new  institutioji  had  become 
well  established  it  was  modified  according  to  cir- 
cumstances.    If   certain   gentes   became   extinct,    it 


THE   IROQUOIS   GENS  IO9 

sometimes  happened  that  by  mutual  consent  the 
members  of  one  gens  were  transferred  in  a  body  from 
other  phratries.  Hence  we  find  the  gentes  of  the 
same  name  differently  grouped  in  the  phratries  of  the 
different  tribes. 

"The  phratry,  among  the  Iroquois,  was  partly 
for  social  and  partly  for  religious  objects."  1.  In 
the  ball  game  one  phratry  plays  against  another. 
Each  one  sends  its  best  players,  the  other  mem- 
bers, upon  different  sides  of  the  field,  watch 
the  game  and  bet  against  one  another  on  the 
result.  2.  In  the  tribal  coimcil  the  sachems 
and  chiefs  of  each  phratry  are  seated  opposite  one 
another,  every  speaker  addressing  the  representatives 
of  each  phratry  as  separate  bodies.  3.  When  a  mur- 
der had  been  committed  in  the  tribe,  the  slayer  and 
the  slain  belonging  to  different  phratries,  the  injured 
gens  often  appealed  to  its  brother  gentes.  These 
held  a  phratry  council  which  in  a  body  addressed 
itself  to  the  other  phratry,  in  order  to  prevail  on  the 
latter  to  assemble  in  council  and  effect  a  condona- 
tion of  the  matter.  In  this  case  the  phratry  re-ap- 
pears in  its  original  gentile  capacity,  and  with  a  bet- 
ter prospect  of  success  than  the  weaker  gens,  its 
daughter.  4.  At  the  funeral  of  prominent  persons 
the  opposite  phratry  prepared  the  interment  and  the 
burial  rites,  while  the  phratry  of  the  deceased  attend- 
ed the  funeral  as  mourners.  If  a  sachem  died,  the 
opposite  phratry  notified  the  central  council  of  the 
Iroquois  that  the  office  of  the  deceased  had  become 
vacant.  5.  In  electing  a  sachem  the  phratry  council 
also  came  into  action.  Endorsement  by  the  brother 
gentes  was  generally  considered  a  matter  of  fact, 
but  the  gentes  of  the  other  phratry  might  oppose. 
In  such  a  case  the  council  of  this  phratry  met,  and 
if  it  maintained  its  opposition,  the  election  was  null 
and  void.    6.  Formerly  the  Iroquois  had  special  relig- 


110  THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE   FAMILY 

ions  mysteries,  called  medicine  lodges  by  the  white 
men.  These  mysteries  were  celebrated  among  the 
Senecas  by  two  religious  societies  that  had  a  special 
form  of  initiation  for  new  members;  each  phratry 
was  represented  by  one  of  these  societies.  7.  If,  as  is 
almost  certain,  the  four  lineages  occupying  the  four 
quarters  of  Tlascaia  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  were 
four  phratries,  then  it  is  proved  that  the  phratries 
were  at  the  same  time  military  units,  as  were  the 
Greek  phratries  and  similar  sex  organizations  of  the 
Germans.  Each  of  these  four  lineages  went  into  bat- 
tle as  a  separate  group  with  its  special  uniform  and 
flag  and  its  own  leader. 

Just  as  several  gentes  form  a  phratry  so  in  the 
classical  form  several  phratries  form  a  tribe.  In 
some  cases  the  middle  group,  the  phratry,  is  missing 
in  strongly  decimated  tribes. 

What  constitutes  an  Indian  tribe  in  America?  1.  A 
distinct  territory  and  a  distinct  name.  Every  tribe 
had  a  considerable  hunting  and  fishing  ground  beside 
the  place  of  its  actual  settlement.  Beyond  this  ter- 
ritory there  was  a  wide  neutral  strip  of  land  reaching 
over  to  the  boundaries  of  the  next  tribe;  a  smaller 
strip  between  tribes  of  related  languages^  a  larger 
between  tribes  of  foreign  languages.  This  corre- 
sponds to  the  boundary  forest  of  the  Germans,  the 
desert  created  by  Caesar's  Suevi  around  their  terri- 
tory, the  isarnlaolt  (Danish  jarnved,  Latin  limei 
Danicus)  between  Danes  and  Germans,  the  sachsen 
wald  (Saxon  forest)  and  the  Slavish  branibor  between 
Slavs  and  Germans  giving  the  province  of  Branden- 
burg its  name.  The  territory  thus  surrounded  by 
neutral  ground  was  the  collective  property  of  a  cer- 
tain tribe,  recognized  as  such  by  other  tribes  and 
defended  against  the  invasion  of  others.  The  dis- 
advantage of  undefined  boundaries  became  of  prac- 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  HI 

tical   importance  only  after  the  population  had  in- 
creased considerably. 

The  tribal  names  generally  seem  to  be  more  the 
result  of  chance  than  of  intentional  selection.  In 
course  of  time  it  frequently  happened  that  a  tribe 
designated  a  neighboring  tribe  by  another  name  than 
that  chosen  by  itself.  In  this  manner  the  Germans 
received  their  first  historical  name  from  the  Celts. 

2.  A  distinct  dialect  peculiar  to  this  tribe.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  the  tribe  and  the  dialect  are  co-exten- 
sive. In  America,  the  formation  of  new  tribes  and 
dialects  by  segmentation  was  in  progress  until  quite 
recently,  and  doubtless  it  is  still  going  on.  Where 
two  weak  tribes  amalgamated  into  one,  there  it  ex- 
ceptionally happened  that  two  closely  related  dialects 
were  simultaneously  spoken  in  the  same  tribe.  The 
average  strength  of  American  tribes  is  less  than  2,000 
members.  The  Cherokees,  however,  number  about 
26,000,  the  greatest  number  of  Indians  in  the  United 
States  speaking  the  same  dialect. 

3.  The  right  to  solemnly  invest  the  sachems  and 
chiefs  elected  by  the  gentes,  and 

4.  The  right  to  depose  them,  even  against  the  will 
of  the  gens.  As  these  sachems  and  chiefs  are  mem- 
bers of  the  tribal  council,  these  rights  of  the  tribe 
explain  themselves.  Where  a  league  of  tribes  had 
been  formed  and  all  the  tribes  were  represented  in 
a  feudal  council,  the  latter  exercised  these  rights. 

5.  The  possession  of  common  religious  conceptions 
(mythology)  and  rites.  "After  the  fashion  of  bar- 
barians the  American  Indians  were  a  religious  peo- 
ple." Their  mythology  has  not  yet  been  critically 
investigated.  They  materialized  their  religious  con- 
ceptions—spirits of  all  sorts— in  human  shapes,  but 
the  lower  stagfe  of  barbarism  in  which  they  lived, 
knows  nothing  as  yet  of  so-called  idols.  It  is  a  cult 
of  nature  and  of  the  elements,  in  process  of  evolution 


112  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

to  pantheism.  The  different  tribes  had  regular  fes- 
tivals with  prescribed  forms  of  worship,  mainly 
dances  and  games.  Especially  dancing  was  an 
essential  part  of  all  religious  celebrations.  Every 
tribe  celebrated  by  itself. 

6.  A  tribal  council  for  public  affairs.  It  was  com- 
posed of  all  the  sachems  and  chiefs  of  the  different, 
gentes,  real  representatives  because  they  could  be 
deposed  at  any  moment.  It  deliberated  in  public, 
surrounded  by  the  rest  of  the  tribal  members,  who 
had  a  right  to  take  part  in  the  discussions  and  claim 
attention.  The  council  decided.  As  a  rule  any  one 
present  gained  a  hearing  on  his  demand.  The  women 
could  also  present  their  views  by  a  speaker  of  their 
choice.  Among  the  Iroquois  the  final  resolution  had 
to  be  passed  unanimously,  as  was  also  the  case  in 
some  resolutions  of  German  mark  (border)  communi- 
ties. It  was  the  special  duty  of  the  tribal  council 
to  regulate  the  relations  with  foreign  tribes.  The 
council  received  and  despatched  legations,  declared 
war  and  made  peace.  War  was  carried  on  principally 
by  volunteers.  "Theoretically,  each  tribe  was  at  war 
with  every  other  tribe  with  which  it  had  not  formed 
a  treaty  of  peace." 

Expeditions  against  such  enemies  were  generally 
organized  by  certain  prominent  warriors.  They 
started  a  war  dance,  and  whoever  took  part  in  it 
thereby  declared  his  intention  to  join  the  expedition. 
Ranks  were  formed  and  the  march  began  immedi- 
ately. The  defense  of  the  attacked  tribal  territory 
was  also  generally  carried  on  by  volunteers.  The 
exodus  and  the  return  of  such  columns  was  always 
the  occasion  of  public  festivities.  The  consent  of 
the  tribal  council  for  such  expeditions  was  not  re- 
quired, and  was  neither  asked  nor  given.  This  cor- 
responds to  the  private  war  expeditions  of  German 
followers  described  by  Tacitus.    Only  these  German 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  113 

groups  of  followers  had  already  assumed  a  more  per- 
manent character,  forming  a  standing  center  organ- 
ized during  peace,  around  which  the  other  volunteers 
gathered  in  case  of  war.  Such  war  columns  w^ere 
rarely  strong  in  numbers.  The  most  important  ex- 
peditions of  the  Indians,  even  for  long  distances,  were 
undertaken  by  insignificant  forces.  If  more  than  one 
group  joined  for  a  great  expedition,  every  group 
obeyed  its  own  leader.  The  uniformity  of  the  cam- 
paign plan  was  secured  as  well  as  possible  by  a  coun- 
cil of  these  leaders.  This  is  the  mode  of  warfare 
among  the  Allemani  in  the  fourth  century  on  the 
Upper  Rhine,  as  described  by  Ammianus  Marcellinus. 

7.  In  some  tribes  we  find  a  head  chief,  whose 
power,  however,  is  limited.  He  is  one  of  the  sachems 
who  has  to  take  provisional  measures  in  cases  re- 
quiring immediate  action,  until  the  council  can  as- 
semble and  decide.  He  represents  a  feeble,  but  gen- 
erally undeveloped  prototype  of  an  official  with  execu- 
tive power.  The  latter,  as  we  shall  see,  developed  in 
most  cases  out  of  the  highest  war  chief. 

The  great  majority  of  American  Indians  did  not  go 
beyond  the  league  of  tribes.  With  a  few  tribes  of 
small  membership,  separated  by  wide  boundary 
tracts,  weakened  by  unceasing  warfare,  they  occu- 
pied an  immense  territory.  Leagues  were  now  and 
then  formed  by  kindred  tribes  as  the  result  of  mo- 
mentary necessity  and  dissolved  again  under  more 
favorable  conditions.  But  in  certain  districts,  tribes 
of  the  same  kin  had  again  found  their  way  out  of  dis- 
bandment  into  permanent  federations,  making  the 
first  step  towards  the  formation  of  nations.  In  the 
United  States  we  find  the  highest  form  of  such  a 
league  among  the  Iroquois.  Emigrating  from  their 
settlements  west  of  the  Mississippi,  where  they  prob- 
ably formed  a  branch  of  the  great  Dakota  family, 
they   settled  at  last  after  long   wanderings   in  the 


114  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

present  State  of  New  York.     They  had  five  tribes: 
Senecas,  Cayugas,  Onondagas,  Oneidas  and  Mohawks. 
They  lived  on  fish,  venison,  and  the  products  of  rough 
gardening,  inhabiting  villages  protected  by  stockades. 
Their  number  never  exceeded  20,000,    and    certain 
gentes  were  common  to  all  five  tribes.     They  spoke 
closely  related  dialects  of  the   same  language   and 
occupied  territories  contiguous  to  one  another.     As 
this  land  was  won  by  conquest,  it  was  natural  for 
these  tribes  to  stand  together  against  the  expelled 
former  inhabitants.    This  led,  not  later,  than  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifteenth  century,  to  a  regular  "eternal 
league,"  a  sworn  alliance  that  immediately  assumed 
an  aggressive  character,   relying  on  its  newly  won 
strength.     About  1675,  at  the  summit  of  its  power, 
it   had   conquered   large   districts   round   about   and 
partly  expelled  the  inhabitants,   partly   made  them 
tributary.    The  Iroquois  League  represented  the  most 
advanced  social  organization  attained  by  Indians  that 
had  not  passed  the  lower  stage  of  barbarism.     Thi<3 
excludes  only  the  Mexicans,  New  Mexicans  and  Pe- 
ruvians. 
The  fundamental  provisions  of  the  league  were: 
1.  Eternal   federation   of  the    five   consanguineous 
tribes  on  the  basis  of  perfect  equality  and  indepen- 
dence in  all   internal  tribal   matters.     This   consan- 
guinity formed  the  true  fundament  of  the   league. 
Three   of   these   tribes,    called   father    tribes,     were 
brothers  to  one  another;  the  other  two,  also  mutual 
brothers,  were  called  son  tribes.     The  three  oldest 
gentes  were  represented  by  living  members  in  all  five 
tribes,    and   these   members   were    all   regarded    as 
brothers.    Three  other  gentes  were  still  alive  in  three 
tribes,  and  all  of  their  members  called  one  another 
fcit>thers.     The  common  language,  only  modified  by 
variations  of  dialect,  was  the  expression  and  proof 
of  their  common  descent. 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  115 

2.  The  oflScial  organ  of  the  league  was  a  federal 
council  of  fifty  sachems,  all  equal  in  rank  and  prom- 
inence. This  council  had  the  supreme  decision  in  all 
federal  matters. 

3.  On  founding  this  league  the  fifty  sachems  had 
been  assigned  to  the  different  tribes  and  gentes  as 
holders  of  new  oflSces  created  especially  for  federal 
purposes.  Vacancies  were  filled  by  new  elections  in 
the  gens,  and  the  holders  of  these  offices  could  be  de- 
posed at  will.  But  the  right  of  installation  belonged 
to  the  federal  council. 

4.  These  federal  sachems  were  at  the  same  time 
sachems  of  their  tribe  and  had  a  seat  and  a  vote  in 
the  tribal  council. 

5.  All  decisions  of  the  federal  council  had  to  be 
unanimous. 

6.  The  votes  were  cast  by  tribes,  so  that  every 
tribe  and  the  council  members  of  each  tribe  had  to 
vote  together  in  order  to  adopt  a  final  resolution. 

7.  Any  one  of  the  five  tribes  could  convoke  the 
federal  council,  but  the  council  could  not  convene 
itself. 

8.  Federal  meetings  were  held  publicly  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  assembled  people.  Every  Iroquois  could 
have  the  word,  but  the  final  decision  rested  with  the 
council. 

9.  The  league  had  no  official  head,  no  executive 
chief. 

10.  It  had,  however,  two  high  chiefs  of  war,  both 
with  equal  functions  and  power  (the  two  "kings"  of 
Sparta,  the  two  consuls  of  Rome). 

This  was  the  whole  constitution,  under  which  the 
Iroquois  lived  over  four  hundred  years  and  still  live. 
I  have  described  it  more  fully  after  Morgan,  because 
we  have  here  an  opportunity  for  studying  the  organi- 
zation of  a  society  that  does  not  yet  know  a  state. 
The  state  presupposes  a  public  power  of    coercion 


Il6  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

separated  from  the  aggregate  body  of  its  members. 
Maurer,  with  correct  intuitlcn,  recognized  the  con- 
stitution of  the  German  Mark  as  a  purely  social  in- 
stitution, essentially  different  from  that  of  a  state, 
though  furnishing  the  fundament  on  which  a  state 
constitution  could  be  erected  later  on.  Hence  in  all 
of  his  writings,  he  traced  the  gradual  rise  of  the  pub- 
lic power  of  coercion  from  and  by  the  side  of 
primordial  constitutions  of  marks,  villages,  farms 
and  towns.  The  North  American  Indians  show  how 
an  originally  united  tribe  gradually  spreads  over  an 
Immense  continent;  how  tribes  by  segmentatio^n  be- 
come nations,  whole  groups  of  tribes;  how  languages 
change  so  that  they  not  only  become  unintelligible  to 
one  another,  but  also  lose  every  trace  of  former  unity; 
how  at  the  same  time  one  gens  splits  up  into  several 
gentes,  how  the  old  mother  gentes  are  preserved  in 
the  phratries  and  how  the  names  of  these  oldest 
gentes  still  remain  the  same  in  widely  distant  and 
long  separated  tribes.  Wolf  and  bear  still  are  gentile 
names  in  a  majority  of  all  Indian  tribes.  And  the 
above  named  constitution  is  essentially  applicable  to 
all  of  them,  except  that  many  did  not  reach  the  point 
of  forming  leagues  of  related  tribes. 

But  once  the  gens  was  given  as  a  social  unit,  we 
also  see  how  the  whole  constitution  of  gentes, 
phratries  and  tribes  developed  with  almost  unavoid- 
able necessity— because  naturally— from  the  gens.  All 
three  of  them  are  groups  of  differentiated  consan- 
guine relations.  Each  is  complete  in  itself,  arranges 
its  own  local  affairs  and  supplements  the  other 
groups.  And  the  cycle  of  functions  performed  by 
them  includes  the  aggregate  of  the  public  affairs  of 
men  in  the  lower  stage  of  barbarism. 

Wherever  we  find  the  gens  as  the  social  unit  of  a 
nation,  we  are  justified  in  searching  for  a  tribal  or- 
ganization similar  to  the  one  described  above.     And 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  117 

whenever  sufficient  material  is  at  hand,  as  in  Greek 
and  Roman  history,  there  we  shall  not  only  find  such 
an  organization,  but  we  may  also  be  assured  that  the 
comparison  with  the  American  sex  organizations  will 
assist  us  in  solving  the  most  perplexing  doubts  and 
riddles  in  places  where  the  material  forsalies  us. 

How  wonderful  this  gentile  constitution  is  in  all 
its  natural  simplicity!  No  soldiers,  gensdarmes  and 
policemen,  no  nobility,  kings,  regents,  prefects  or 
judges,  no  prisons,  no  lawsuits,  and  still  affairs  run 
smoothly.  All  quarrels  and  disputes  are  settled  by 
the  entire  community  involved  in  them,  either  the 
gens  or  the  tribe  or  the  various  gentes  among  them- 
selves. Only  in  very  rare  cases  the  blood  revenge  is 
threatened  as  an  extreme  measure.  Our  capital  pun- 
ishment is  simply  a  civilized  form  of  it,  afflicted  with 
all  the  advantages  and  drawbacks  of  civilization. 
Not  a  vestige  of  our  cumbersome  and  intricate  sys- 
tem of  administration  is  needed,  although  there  are 
more  public  affairs  to  be  settled  than  nowadays:  the 
communistic  household  is  shared  by  a  number  of 
families,  the  land  belongs  to  the  tribe,  only  the  gar- 
dens are  temporarily  assigned  to  the  households.  The 
parties  involved  in  a  question  settle  it  and  in  most 
cases  the  hundred-year-old  traditions  have  settled 
everything  beforehand.  There  cannot  be  any  poor 
and  destitute— the  communistic  households  and  the 
gentes  know  their  duties  toward  the  aged,  sick  and 
disabled.  All  are  free  and  equal— the  women  in- 
cluded. There  is  no  room  yet  for  slaves,  nor  for  the 
subjugation  of  foreign  tribes.  When  about  1651  the 
Iroquois  had  vanquished  the  Eries  and  the  "Neutral 
Nation,"  they  offered  to  adopt  them  into  the  league 
on  equal  terms.  Only  when  the  vanquished  declined 
this  offer  they  were  driven  out  of  their  territory. 

What  splendid  men  and  women  were  produced  by 
such  a  society!     All  the  white  men  who  came  into 


Il8  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

contact  with  unspoiled  Indians  admired  the  personal 
dignity,  straightforwardness,  strength  of  character 
and  bravery  of  these  barbarians. 

We  lately  received  proofs  of  such  bravery  in  Africa. 
A  few  years  ago  the  Zulus,  and  some  months  ago  the 
Nubians,  both  of  which  tribes  still  retain  the  gen- 
tile organization,  did  what  no  European  army  can  do. 
Armed  only  with  lances  and  spears,  without  any  fire- 
arms, they  advanced  under  a  hail  of  bullets  from 
breechloaders  up  1o  the  bayonets  of  the  English  in- 
fantry—the best  of  the  w^orld  for  fighting  in  closed 
ranks— and  threw  them  into  confusion  more  than 
once,  yea,  even  forced  them  to  retreat  in  spite  of  the 
immense  disparity  of  weapons,  and  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  they  have  no  military  service  and  don't 
know  anything  about  drill.  How  enduring  and  able 
they  are,  is  proved  by  the  complaints  of  the  English 
who  admit  that  a  Kaffir  can  cover  a  longer  distance 
In  twenty-four  hours  than  a  horse.  The  smallest 
muscle  springs  forth,  hard  and  tough  like  a  whip- 
lash, says  an  English  painter. 

Such  was  human  society  and  its  members,  before 
the  division  into  classes  had  taken  place.  And  a  com- 
parison of  that  social  condition  with  the  condition  of 
the  overwhelming  majority  of  present  day  society 
shows  the  enormous  chasm  that  separates  our  prole- 
tarian and  small  farmer  from  the  free  gentile  of  old. 

That  is  one  side  of  the  question.  We  must  not  over- 
look, however,  that  this  organization  was  doomed.  It 
did  not  pass  beyond  the  tribe.  The  league  of  tribes 
marked  the  beginning  of  its  downfall,  as  we  shall  see, 
and  as  the  attempts  of  the  Iroquois  at  subjugating 
others  showed.  Whatever  went  beyond  the  tribe,  went 
outside  of  gentilism.  Where  no  direct  peace  treaty 
existed,  there  war  reigned  from  tribe  to  tribe.  And 
this  war  was  carried  on  with  the  particular  cruelty 


THE    IROQUOIS    GENS  Up 

that  distinguishes  man  from  other  animals,  and  that 
was  modified  later  on  simply  by  self-interest. 

The  gentile  constitution  in  its  most  flourishing  time, 
such  as  we  saw  it  in  America,  presupposed  a  very 
undeveloped  state  of  production,  hence  a  population 
thinly  scattered  over  a  wide  area.  Man  was  almost 
completely  dominated  by  nature,  a  strange  and  incom- 
prehensible riddle  to  him.  His  simple  religious  con- 
ceptions clearly  reflect  this.  The  tribe  remained  the 
boundary  line  for  man,  as  well  in  regard  to  himself  as 
to  strangers  outside.  The  gens,  the  tribe  and  their 
Institutions  were  holy  and  inviolate.  They  were  a 
superior  power  instituted  by  nature,  and  the  feelings, 
thoughts  and  actions  of  the  individual  remained  un- 
conditionally subject  to  them.  Commanding  as  the 
people  of  this  epoch  appear  to  us,  nothing  distinguishes 
one  from  another.  They  are  still  attached,  as  Marx 
has  it,  to  the  navel  string  of  the  primordial  com- 
munity. 

The  power  of  these  natural  and  spontaneous  com- 
munities had  to  be  broken,  and  It  was.  But  it  was 
done  by  influences  that  from  the  very  beginning  bear 
the  mark  of  degradation,  of  a  downfall  from  the 
simple  moral  grandeur  of  the  old  gentile  society.  The 
new  system  of  classes  is  inaugurated  by  the  meanest 
impulses:  vulgar  covetousness,  brutal  lust,  sordid  ava- 
rice, selfish  robbery  of  common  wealth.  The  old  gen- 
tile society  without  classes  is  undermined  and  brought 
to  fall  by  the  most  contemptible  means:  theft,  vio- 
lence, cunning,  treason.  And  during  all  the  thousands 
of  years  of  its  existence,  the  new  society  has  never 
been  anything  else  but  the  development  of  the  small 
minority  at  the  expense  of  the  exploited  and  oppressed 
majority.    More  than  ever  this  is  true  at  present. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GRECIAN  GENS. 

Greeks,  Pelasgians  and  other  nations  of  the  same 
tribal  origin  were  constituted  since  prehistoric  times 
on  the  same  systematic  plan  as  the  Americans:  gens, 
phratry,  tribe,  league  of  tribes.  The  phratry  might  be 
missing,  as  e.  g.  among  the  Dorians;  the  league  of 
tribes  might  not  be  fully  developed  in  every  case;  but 
the  gens  was  everywhere  the  unit.  At  the  time  of 
their  entrance  into  history,  the  Greeks  were  on  the 
threshold  of  civilization.  Two  full  periods  of  evolution 
are  stretching  between  the  Greeks  and  the  above 
named  American  tribes.  The  Greeks  of  the  heroic  age 
are  by  so  much  ahead  of  the  Iroquois.  For  this  reason 
the  Grecian  gens  no  longer  retains  the  archaic  char- 
acter of  the  Iroquois  gens.  The  stamp  of  group  mar- 
riage is  becoming  rather  blurred.  Maternal  law  had 
given  way  to  paternal  lineage.  Rising  private  property 
had  thus  made  its  first  opening  in  the  gentile  constitu- 
tion. A  second  opening  naturally  followed  the  first: 
Paternal  law  being  now  in  force,  the  fortune  of  a 
wealthy  heiress  would  have  fallen  to  her  husband  in 
the  case  of  her  marriage.  That  would  have  meant 
the  transfer  of  her  wealth  from  her  own  gens  to  that 
of  her  husband.  In  order  to  avoid  this,  the  fundament 
of  gentile  law  was  shattered.  In  such  a  case,  the  girl 
was  not  only  permitted,  but  obliged  to  intermarry 
within  the  gens,  in  order  to  retain  the  wealth  in  the 
latter. 

According  to  Grote's  History  of  Greece,  the  gens  of 
Attica  was  held  together  by  the  following  bonds: 

1.    Common  religious  rites  and  priests  installed  ex- 


THE    GRECIAN    GENS  121 

clusively  in  honor  of  a  certain  divinity,  the  alleged 
gentile  ancestor,  who  was  designated  by  a  special  by- 
name in  this  capacity. 

2.  A  common  burial  ground.  (See  Demosthenes' 
Eubulides.) 

3.  Right  of  mutual  inheritance. 

4.  Obligation  to  mutually  help,  protect  and  assist 
one  another  in  case  of  violence. 

5.  Mutual  right  and  duty  to  intermarry  in  the  gens 
in  certain  cases,  especially  for  orphaned  girls  or  heir- 
esses. 

6.  Possession  of  common  property,  at  least  in  some 
cases,  and  an  archon  (supervisor)  and  treasurer  elected 
for  this  special  case. 

The  phratry  united  several  gentes,  but  rather  loosely. 
Still  we  find  in  it  similar  rights  and  duties,  especially 
common  religious  rites  and  the  right  of  avenging  the 
death  of  a  phrator.  Again,  all  the  phratries  of  a  tribe 
had  certain  religious  festivals  in  common  that  re- 
curred at  regular  intervals  and  were  celebrated  under 
the  guidance  of  a  phylobasileus  (tribal  head)  selected 
from  the  ranks  of  the  nobles  (eupatrides). 

So  far  Grote.  And  Marx  adds:  "The  savage  (e.  g. 
the  Iroquois)  is  still  plainly  visible  in  the  Grecian 
gens."  On  further  investigation  we  find  additional 
proofs  of  this.  For  the  Grecian  gens  has  also  the 
following  attributes: 

7.  Paternal  Lineage. 

8.  Prohibition  of  intermarrying  in  the  gens  except 
in  the  case  of  heiresses.  This  exception  formulated 
as  a  law  clearly  proves  the  validity  of  the  old  rule. 
This  is  further  substantiated  by  the  universally  ac- 
cepted custom  that  a  woman  in  marrying  renounced 
the  religious  rites  of  her  gens  and  accepted  those  of 
her  husband's  gens.  She  was  also  registered  in  his 
phratry.  According  to  this  custom  and  to  a  famous 
quotation  in  Dikaearchos,  marriage  outside  of  the  gens 


122  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

was  the  rule.    Becker  in  "Charikles"  directly  assumes 
that  nobody  was  permitted  to  intermarry  in  the  gens. 

9.  The  right  to  adopt  strangers  in  the  gens.  It  was 
exercised  by  adoption  into  the  family  under  public 
formalities;  but  it  was  used  sparingly. 

10.  The  right  to  elect  and  depose  the  archons.  We 
know  that  every  gens  had  its  archon.  As  to  the  hered- 
ity of  the  office,  there  is  no  reliable  information.  Until 
the  end  of  barbarism,  the  probability  is  always  against 
strict  heredity.  For  it  is  absolutely  incompatible  with 
conditions  where  rich  and  poor  had  perfectly  equal 
rights  in  the  gens. 

Not  alone  Grote,  but  also  Niebuhr,  Mommsen  and 
all  other  historians  of  classical  antiquity  were  foiled 
by  the  gens.  Though  they  chronicled  many  of  its  dis- 
tinguishing marks  correctly,  still  they  always  regarded 
it  as  a  group  of  families  and  thus  prevented  their 
understanding  the  nature  and  origin  of  gentes.  Under 
the  gentile  constitution,  the  family  never  was  a  unit 
of  organization,  nor  could  it  be  so,  because  man  and 
wife  necessarily  belonged  to  two  different  gentes.  The 
gens  was  wholly  comprised  in  the  phratry,  the  phratry 
in  the  tribe.  But  the  family  belonged  half  to  the  gens 
of  the  man,  and  half  to  that  of  the  woman.  Nor  does 
the  state  recognize  the  family  in  public  law.  To  this 
day,  the  family  has  only  a  place  in  private  law.  Yet 
all  historical  records  take  their  departure  from  the 
absurd  supposition,  which  was  considered  almost  in- 
violate during  the  eighteenth  century,  that  the  monog- 
amous family,  an  institution  scarcely  older  than  civili- 
zation, is  the  nucleus  around  which  society  and  state 
gradually  crystallized. 

"Mr.  Grote  will  also  please  note,"  throws  in  Marx, 
"that  the  gentes.  which  the  Greeks  traced  to  their 
mythologies,  are  older  than  the  mythologies.  The  lat- 
ter together  with  their  gods  and  deml-gods  were  cre- 
ated by  the  gentes." 


THE    GRECIAN    GENS  123 

Grote  is  quoted  with  preference  by  Morgan  as  a 
prominent  and  quite  trustworthy  witness.  He  relates 
that  every  Attic  gens  had  a  name  derived  from  its 
alleged  ancestor;  that  before  Solon's  time,  and  even 
after,  it  was  customary  for  the  gentiles  (genn§tes)  to 
inherit  the  fortunes  of  their  intestate  deceased;  and 
that  in  case  of  murder  first  the  relatives  of  the  victim 
had  the  duty  and  the  right  to  prosecute  the  criminal, 
after  them  the  gentiles  and  finally  the  phrators. 
"Whatever  we  may  learn  about  the  oldest  Attic  laws 
is  founded  on  the  organization  in  gentes  and  phrat- 
ries." 

The  descent  of  the  gentes  from  common  ancestors 
has  caused  the  "schoolbred  philistines,"  as  Marx  has 
it,  much  worry.  Representing  this  descent  as  purely 
mythical,  they  are  at  a  loss  to  explain  how  the  gentes 
developed  out  of  independent  and  wholly  unrelated 
families.  But  this  explanation  must  be  given,  if  they 
wish  to  explain  the  existence  of  the  gentes.  They  then 
turn  around  in  a  circle  of  meaningless  gibberish  and 
do  not  get  beyond  the  phrase:  the  pedigree  is  indeed 
a  fable,  but  the  gens  is  a  reality.  Grote  finally  winds 
up— the  parenthetical  remarks  are  by  Marx:  "We 
rarely  hear  about  this  pedigree,  because  it  is  used  in 
public  only  on  certain  very  festive  occasions.  But  the 
less  prominent  gentes  had  their  common  religious  rites 
(very  peculiar,  Mr.  Grote!)  and  their  common  super- 
human ancestor  and  pedigree  just  like  the  more  promi- 
nent gentes  (how  very  peculiar  this,  Mr.  Grote,  in  less 
prominent  gentes!);  and  the  ground  plan  and  the  ideai 
fundament  (my  dear  sir!  Not  ideal,  but  carnal,  anglice 
"fleshly")  was  the  same  in  all  of  them." 

Marx  sums  up  Morgan's  reply  to  this  as  follows: 
"The  system  of  consanguinity  corresponding  to  the 
archaic  form  of  the  gens— which  the  Greeks  once  pos- 
sessed like  other  mortals— preserved  the  knowledge 
of  the  mutual  relation  of  all  members  of  the  gens. 


124  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

They  learned  this  important  fact  by  practice  from 
early  childhood.  With  the  advent  of  the  monogamous 
family  this  was  gradually  forgotten.  The  gentile  name 
created  a  pedigree  by  the  side  of  which  that  of  the 
monogamous  family  seemed  insignificant.  This  name 
had  now  the  function  of  preserving  the  memory  of 
the  common  descent  of  its  bearers.  But  the  pedigree 
of  the  gens  went  so  far  back  that  the  gentiles  could 
no  longer  actually  ascertain  their  mutual  kinship,  ex- 
cept in  a  limited  number  of  more  recent  common  an- 
cestors. The  name  itself  was  the  proof  of  a  common 
descent  and  sufficed  always  except  in  cases  of  adop- 
tion. To  actually  dispute  all  kinship  between  gentiles 
after  the  manner  of  Grote  and  Niebuhr,  who  thus 
transform  the  gens  into  a  purely  hypothetical  and 
fictitious  creation  of  the  brain,  is  indeed  worthy  of 
"ideal"  scientists,  that  is  book  worms.  Because  the 
relation  of  the  generations,  especially  on  the  advent 
of  monogamy,  is  removed  to  the  far  distance,  and  the 
reality  of  the  past  seems  reflected  in  phantastic  im- 
aginations, therefore  the  brave  old  Philistines  con- 
cluded and  conclude  that  the  imaginary  pedigree  cre- 
ated real  gentes!" 

The  phratry  was,  as  among  the  Americans,  a  mother- 
gens  comprising  several  daughter  gentes,  and  often 
traced  them  all  to  the  same  ancestor.  According  to 
Grote  "all  contemporaneous  members  of  the  phratry 
of  Hekataeos  were  descendants  in  the  sixteenth  de- 
gree of  one  and  the  same  divine  ancestor.  All  the 
gentes  of  this  phratry  were  therefore  literally  brother 
gentes.  The  phratry  is  mentioned  by  Homer  as  a 
military  unit  in  that  famous  passage  where  Nestor 
advises  Agamemnon:  "Arrange  the  men  by  phratries 
and  tribes  so  that  phratry  may  assist  phratry,  and 
tribe  the  tribe."  The  phratry  has  the  right  and  the 
duty  to  prosecute  the  death  of  a  phrator,  hence  in 
former  times  the   duty   of   blood  revenge.     It   has, 


THE    GRECIAN    GENS  125 

firrtliermore,  common  religious  rites  and  festivals.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  development  of  the  entire  Grecian 
mythology  from  the  traditional  old  Aryan  cult  of 
nature  w^as  essentially  due  to  the  gentes  and  phratries 
and  took  place  within  them.  The  phratry  had  an 
official  head  (phratriarchos)  and  also,  according  to  De 
Coulanges,  meetings  and  binding  resolutions,  a  juris- 
diction and  administration.  Even  the  state  of  a  later 
period,  while  ignoring  the  gens,  left  certain  public 
functions  to  the  phratry. 

The  tribe  consisted  of  several  kindred  phratries.  In 
Attica  there  were  fom*  tribes  of  three  phratries  each; 
the  number  of  gentes  in  each  phratry  was  thirty.  Such 
an  accurate  division  of  groups  reveals  the  fact  of  a 
conscious  and  well-planned  interference  with  the 
natural  order.  How,  when  and  why  this  was  done  is 
not  disclosed  by  Grecian  history.  The  historical  mem- 
ory of  the  Greeks  themselves  does  not  reach  beyond 
the  heroic  age. 

Closely  packed  in  a  comparatively  small  territory  as 
the  Greeks  were,  their  dialectic  differences  were  less 
conspicuous  than  those  developed  in  the  wide  American 
forests.  Yet  even  here  we  find  only  tribes  of  the  same 
main  dialect  united  in  a  larger  organization.  Little 
Attica  had  its  own  dialect  which  later  on  became  the 
prevailing  language  in  Grecian  prose. 

In  the  epics  of  Homer  we  generally  find  the  Greek 
tribes  combined  into  small  nations,  but  so  that  their 
gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  retained  their  full  inde- 
pendence. They  already  lived  in  towns  fortified  by 
walls.  The  population  increased  with  the  growth  of 
the  herds,  with  agriculture  and  the  beginnings  of  the 
handicrafts.  At  the  same  time  the  differences  in 
wealth  became  more  marked  and  gave  rise  to  an  aris- 
tocratic element  within  the  old  primordial  democracy. 
The  individual  little  nations  carried  on  an  unceasing 
warfare  for  the  possession  of  the  best  land  and  also 


126  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

for  the  sake  of  looting.     Slavery  of  the  prisoners  «f 
war  was  already  well  established. 

The  constitution  of  these  tribes  and  nations  was  as 
follows: 

1.  A  permanent  authority  was  the  council  (bule), 
originally  composed  of  the  gentile  archons,  but  later 
on,  when  their  number  became  too  great,  recruited  by 
selection  in  such  a  way  that  the  aristocratic  element 
was  developed  and  strengthened.  Dionysios  openly 
speaks  of  the  council  at  the  time  of  the  heroes  as  being 
composed  of  nobles  (kratlstoi).  The  council  had  the 
final  decision  in  all  important  matters.  In  Aeschylos, 
e.  g.  the  council  of  Thebes  decides  that  the  body  of 
Eteokles  be  buried  with  full  honors,  the  body  of  Poly- 
nikes,  however,  thrown  out  to  be  devoured  by  the 
dogs.  With  the  rise  of  the  state  this  council  was  trans- 
formed into  the  senate. 

2.  The  public  meeting  (agora).  We  saw  how  the 
Iroquois,  men  and  women,  attended  the  council  meet- 
ings, taking  an  orderly  part  in  the  discussions  and 
Influencing  them.  Among  the  Homeric  Greeks,  this 
attendance  had  developed  to  a  complete  public  meet- 
ing. This  was  also  the  case  with  the  Germans  of  the 
archaic  period.  The  meeting  was  called  by  the  council. 
Every  man  could  demand  the  word.  The  final  vote 
was  taken  by  hand  raising  (Aeschylos  in  "The  Suppli- 
ants," 607),  or  by  acclamation.  The  decision  of  the 
meeting  was  supreme  and  final.  "Whenever  a  matter 
is  discussed,"  says  Schoemann  in  "Antiquities  of 
Greece,  "which  requires  the  participation  of  the  people 
for  its  execution.  Homer  does  not  indicate  any  means 
by  which  the  people  could  be  forced  to  it  against  their 
will."  It  is  evident  that  at  a  time  when  every  able- 
bodied  member  of  the  tribe  was  a  warrior,  there  ex- 
isted as  yet  no  public  power  apart  from  the  people 
that  might  have  been  used  against  them.  The  primor- 
dial democracy  was  still  in  full  force,  and  by  this 


THE    GRECIAN    GENS  127 

standard  the  influence  and  position  of  the  council  and 
of  the  basileus  must  be  judged. 

3.  The  military  chief  (basileus).  Marx  makes  the 
following  comment:  "The  European  scientists,  most- 
ly born  servants  of  princes,  represent  the  basileus  as 
a  monarch  in  the  modem  sense.  The  Yankee  repub- 
lican Morgan  objects  to  this.  Very  ironically  but  truth- 
fully he  says  of  the  oily  Gladstone  and  his  "Juventua 
Mundi'  :  'Mr.  Gladstone,  who  presents  to  his  readers 
the  Grecian  chiefs  of  the  heroic  age  as  kings  and 
princes,  with  the  superadded  qualities  of  gentlemen, 
is  forced  to  admit  that,  on  the  whole  we  seem  to  have 
the  custom  or  law  of  primogeniture  sufficiently,  but 
not  oversharply  defined.'  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr. 
Gladstone  himself  must  have  perceived  that  a  primo- 
geniture resting  on  a  clause  of  'sufficient  but  not  over- 
sharp'  definition  is  as  bad  as  none  at  all." 

We  «aw  how  the  law  of  heredity  was  applied  to  the 
offices  of  sachems  and  chiefs  among  the  Iroquois  and 
other  Indians.  All  offices  were  subject  to  the  vote  of 
the  gentiles  and  for  this  reason  hereditary  in  the  gens. 
A  vacancy  was  filled  preferably  by  the  next  gentile 
relative— the  brother  or  the  sister's  son— unless  good 
reasons  existed  for  passing  him.  That  in  Greece, 
under  paternal  law,  the  office  of  basileus  was  gener- 
ally transmitted  to  the  son  or  one  of  the  sons,  indicates 
only  that  the  probability  of  succession  by  public  elec- 
tion was  in  favor  of  the  sons.  It  implies  by  no  means 
a  legal  succession  without  a  vote  of  the  people.  We 
here  perceive  simply  the  first  rudiments  of  segregated 
families  of  aristocrats  among  Iroquois  and  Greeks, 
which  led  to  a  hereditary  leadership  or  monarchy  in 
Greece.  Hence  the  facts  are  in  favor  of  the  opinion 
that  among  Greeks  the  basileus  was  either  elected  by 
the  people  or  at  last  was  subject  to  the  indorsement 
of  their  appointed  organs,  the  council  or  agora,  aa 
was  the  case  with  the  Roman  king  (rex). 


128  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

In  the  Iliad  the  ruler  of  men,  Agamemnon,  does  not 
appear  as  the  supreme  king  of  the  Greeks,  but  as 
general  in  chief  of  a  federal  army  besieging  a  city. 
And  when  dissensions  had  broken  out  among  the 
Greeks,  it  is  this  quality  which  Odysseus  points  out 
In  a  famous  passage:  "Evil  is  the  rule  of  the  many; 
let  one  be  the  ruler,  one  the  chief"  (to  which  the  popu- 
lar verse  about  the  scepter  was  added  later  on).  Odys- 
seus does  not  lecture  on  the  form  of  government,  but 
demands  obedience  to  the  general  in  chief. 

Considering  that  the  Greeks  before  Troy  appear  only 
In  the  character  of  an  army,  the  proceedings  of  the 
agora  are  sufficiently  democratic.  In  referring  to 
presents,  that  is  the  division  of  the  spoils,  Achilles 
always  leaves  the  division,  not  to  Agamemnon  or 
some  other  basileus,  but  to  the  "sons  of  the  Achaeans," 
the  people.  The  attributes,  descendant  of  Zeus,  bred 
by  Zeus,  do  not  prove  anything,  because  every  gens  is 
descended  from  some  god— the  gens  of  the  leader  of 
the  tribe  from  a  "prominent"  god,  in  this  case  Zeus. 
Even  those  who  are  without  personal  freedom,  as  the 
swineherd  Eumaeos  and  others,  are  "divine"  (dioi  or 
theioi),  even  in  the  Odyssey,  which  belongs  to  a  much 
later  period  than  the  Iliad.  In  the  same  Odyssey,  the 
name  of  "heros"  is  given  to  the  herald  Mulios  as  well 
as  to  the  blind  bard  Demodokos.  In  short,  the  word 
"basileia,"  with  which  the  Greek  writers  designate 
the  so-called  monarchy  of  Homer  (because  the  mili- 
tary leadership  is  its  distinguishing  mark,  by  the  side 
of  which  the  council  and  the  agora  are  existing), 
means  simply— military  democracy  (Marx). 

The  basileus  had  also  sacerdotal  and  judiciary  func- 
tions beside  those  of  a  military  leader.  The  judiciary- 
functions  are  not  clearly  defined,  but  the  functions  of 
priesthood  are  due  to  his  position  of  chief  representa- 
tive of  the  tribe  or  of  the  league  of  tribes.  There  is 
never  any  mention  of  civil,  administrative  functions. 


THE    GRECIAN    GENS  129 

But  it  seems  that  he  was  ex-oflacio  a  member  of  the 
council.  The  translation  of  basileus  by  king  is 
etymologically  quite  correct,  because  king  (Kuning) 
is  derived  from  Kuni,  Kunne,  and  signifies  chief  of 
a  gens.  But  the  modern  meaning  of  the  word  king 
in  no  way  designates  the  functions  of  the  Grecian 
basileus.  Thucydides  expressly  refers  to  the  old 
basileia  as  patrike,  that  is  "derived  from  the  gens," 
and  states  that  it  had  well  defined  functions.  And 
Aristotle  says  that  the  basileia  of  heroic  times  was  a 
leadership  of  free  men  and  that  the  basileus  was  a 
military  chief,  a  judge  and  a  high  priest.  Hence  the 
basileus  had  no  governmental  power  in  a  modern 
sense.* 

In  the  Grecian  constitution  of  heroic  times,  then, 
we  still  find  the  old  gentilism  fully  alive,  but  we  also 
perceive  the  beginnings  of  the  elements  that  under- 
mine it;  paternal  law  and  inheritance  of  property  by 
the  father's  children,  favoring  accumulation  of  wealth 
in  the  family  and  giving  to  the  latter  a  power  apart 
from  the  gens;  influence  of  the  difference  of  wealth 
on  the  constitution  by  the  formation  of  the  first  rudi- 
ments of  hereditary  nobility  and  monarchy;  slavery, 
first  limited  to  prisoners  of  war,  but  already  paving 
the  way  to  the  enslavement  of  tribal  and  gentile  asso- 
ciates; degeneration  of  the  old  feuds  between  tribes  a 
regular  mode  of  existing  by  systematic  plundering  on 

Author's  note. 

*Just  as  the  Grecian  basileus,  so  the  Aztec  military  chief 
was  misrepresented  as  a  modern  prince.  Morgan  was  the  first 
to  submit  to  historical  criticism  the  reports  of  the  Spaniards 
who  first  misapprehended  and  exaggerated,  and  later  on 
consciously  misrepresented  the  functions  of  this  office.  He 
showed  that  the  Mexicans  were  in  the  middle  stage  of 
barbarism,  but  on  a  higher  plane  than  the  New  Mexican 
Pueblo  Indians,  and  that  their  constitution,  so  far  as  the 
garbled  accounts  show,  corresponded  to  this  stage:  a  league 
of  three  tribes  which  had  made  a  number  of  others  tribu- 
tary and  was  administered  by  a  federal  council  and  a 
federal  chief  of  war,  whom  the  Spaniards  construed  into 
an  "emperor." 


130  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

land  and  sea  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  cattle, 
slaves,  and  treasures.  In  ^hort,  wealth  is  praised 
and  respected  as  the  highest  treasure,  and  the  old  gen- 
tile institutions  are  abused  in  order  to  justify  the 
forcible  robbery  of  wealth.  Only  one  thing  was  miss- 
ing: an  institution  that  not  only  secured  the  newly 
acquired  property  of  private  individuals  against  the 
communistic  traditions  of  the  gens,  that  not  only 
declared  as  sacred  the  formerly  so  despised  private 
property  and  represented  the  protection  of  this  sacred 
property  as  the  highest  purpose  of  human  society,  but 
that  also  stamped  the  gradually  developing  new  forms 
of  acquiring  property,  of  constantly  increasing  wealth, 
with  the  universal  sanction  of  society.  An  institution 
that  lent  the  character  of  perpetuity  not  only  to  the 
newly  rising  division  into  classes,  but  also  to  the  right 
of  the  possessing  classes  to  exploit  and  rule  the  non- 
possessing  classes. 
And  this  institution  was  found.    The  state  arose. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  ATTIC   STATE. 

How  the  state  gradually  developed  by  partly  trans- 
forming the  organs  of  the  gentile  constitution,  partly 
replacing  them  by  new  organs  and  finally  installing 
real  state  authorities;  how  the  place  of  the  nation  in 
arms  defending  itself  through  its  gentes,  phratries  and 
tribes,  was  taken  by  an  armed  public  power  of 
coercion  in  the  hands  of  these  authorities  and  avail- 
able against  the  mass  of  the  people;  nowhere  can  we 
observe  the  first  act  of  this  drama  so  well  as  In 
ancient  Athens.  The  essential  stages  of  the  various 
transformations  are  outlined  by  Morgan,  but  the 
analysis  of  the  economic  causes  producing  them  is 
largely  added  by  myself. 

In  the  heroic  period,  the  four  tribes  of  the  Athenians 
were  still  installed  in  separate  parts  of  Attica.  Even 
the  twelve  phratries  composing  them  seem  to  have 
had  separate  seats  in  the  twelve  different  towns  of 
Cecrops.  The  constitution  was  in  harmony  with  the 
period:  a  public  meeting  (agora),  a  council  (bGle)  and 
a  basileus. 

As  far  back  as  we  can  trace  written  history  we 
find  the  land  divided  up  and  in  the  possession  of  pri- 
vate individuals.  For  during  the  last  period  of  the 
higher  stage  of  barbarism  the  production  of  commodi- 
ties and  the  resulting  trade  had  well  advanced.  Grain, 
wine  and  oil  were  staple  articles.  The  sea  trade  on 
the  Aegean  Sea  drifted  more  and  more  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  Phoenicians  into  those  of  the  Athenians. 
By  the  purchase  and  sale  of  land,  by  continued  divis- 
ion of  labor  between  agriculture  and  industry,  trade 


132  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

and  navigation,  the  members  of  gentes,  phratries  and 
tribes  very  soon  intermingled.  The  districts  of  the 
phratry  and  the  tribe  received  inhabitants  who  did 
not  belong  to  these  bodies  and,  therefore,  were 
strangers  in  their  own  homes,  although  they  were 
countrymen.  For  during  times  of  peace,  every  phratry 
and  every  tribe  administered  its  own  affairs  without 
consulting  the  council  of  Athens  or  the  basileus.  But 
Inhabitants  not  belonging  to  the  phratry  or  the  tribe 
could  not  take  part  in  the  administration  of  these 
bodies. 

Thus  the  well-regulated  functions  of  the  gentile 
organs  became  so  disarranged  that  relief  was  already 
needed  during  the  heroic  period.  A  constitution  attrib- 
uted to  Theseus  was  introduced.  The  main  feature 
of  this  change  was  the  institution  of  a  central  admin- 
istration in  Athens.  A  part  of  the  affairs  that  had  so 
long  been  conducted  autonomously  by  the  tribes  was 
declared  collective  business  and  transferred  to  a  gen- 
eral council  in  Athens.  This  step  of  the  Athenians 
went  farther  than  any  ever  taken  by  the  nations  of 
America.  For  the  simple  federation  of  autonomous 
tribes  was  now  replaced  by  the  conglomeration  of  all 
tribes  into  one  single  body.  The  next  result  was  a 
common  Athenian  law,  standing  above  the  legal  tradi- 
tions of  the  tribes  and  gentes.  It  bestowed  on  the 
citizens  of  Athens  certain  privileges  and  legal  protec- 
tion, even  in  a  territory  that  did  not  belong  to  their 
tribe.  This  meant  another  blow  to  the  gentile  consti- 
tution; for  it  opened  the  way  to  the  admission  of 
citizens  who  were  not  members  of  any  Attic  tribe 
and  stood  entirely  outside  of  the  Athenian  gentile  con- 
stitution. 

A  second  institution  attributed  to  Theseus  was  the 
division  of  the  entire  nation  into  three  classes  regard- 
less of  the  gentes,  phratries  and  f^ibes:  eupatrides  or 
nobles,  geomoroi  or  farmers.  ap<i'  demiurgoi  or  trades- 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   ATTIC    STATE  133 

men.  The  exclusive  privilege  of  the  nobles  to  fill  the 
offices  was  included  in  this  innovation.  Apart  from 
this  privilege  the  new  division  remained  ineffective,  as 
it  did  not  create  any  legal  distinctions  between  the 
classes.  But  it  is  important,  because  it  shows  us  the 
new  social  elements  that  had  developed  in  secret.  It 
shows  that  the  habitual  holding  of  gentile  offices  by 
certain  families  had  already  developed  into  a  prac- 
tically uncontested  privilege;  that  the«e  families, 
already  powerful  through  their  wealth,  began  to  com- 
bine outside  of  their  gentes  into  a  privileged  class; 
and  that  the  just  arising  state  sanctioned  this  assump- 
tion. '  It  shows  furthermore  that  the  division  of  labor 
between  farmers  and  tradesmen  had  grown  strong 
enough  to  contest  the  supremacy  of  the  old  gentile  and 
tribal  division  of  society.  And  finally  it  proclaims  the 
irreconcilable  opposition  of  gentile  society  to  the  state. 
The  first  attempt  to  form  a  state  broke  up  the  gentes 
by  dividing  their  members  against  one  another  and 
opposing  a  privileged  class  to  a  class  of  disowned 
belonging  to  two  different  branches  of  production. 

The  ensuing  political  history  of  Athens  up  to  the 
time  of  Solon  is  only  incompletely  known.  The  office 
of  basileus  became  obsolete.  Archons  elected  from 
the  ranks  of  the  nobility  occupied  the  leading  position 
in  the  state.  The  power  of  the  nobility  increased  con- 
tinually, until  it  became  unbearable  about  the  year 
600  before  Christ.  The  principal  means  for  stifling 
the  liberty  of  the  people  were— money  and  usury.  The 
main  seat  of  the  nobility  was  in  and  around  Athens. 
There  the  sea  trade  and  now  and  then  a  little  con- 
venient piracy  enriched  them  and  concentrated  the 
money  into  their  hands.  From  this  point  the  gradu- 
ally arising  money  power  penetrated  like  corrugating 
acid  into  the  traditional  modes  of  rural  existence 
founded  on  natural  economy.  The  gentile  constitu- 
tion is  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  money  rule.  The 


134  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

ruin  of  the  Attic  farmers  coincided  with  the  loosening 
of  the  old  gentile  bonds  that  protected  them.  The 
debtor's  receipt  and  the  pawning  of  the  property— 
for  the  mortgage  was  also  invented  by  the  Athemans 
—cared  neither  for  the  gens  nor  for  the  phratry.  But 
the  old  gentile  constitution  knew  nothing  of  money, 
advance  and  debt.  Hence  the  ever  more  virulently 
spreading  money  rule  of  the  nobility  developed  a  new 
legal  custom,  securing  the  creditor  against  the  debtor 
and  sanctioning  the  exploitation  of  the  small  farmer 
by  the  wealthy.  All  the  rural  districts  of  Attica  were 
crowded  with  mortgage  columns  bearing  the  legend 
that  the  lot  on  which  they  stood  was  mortgaged  to 
such  and  such  for  so  much.  The  fields  that  were  not 
so  designated  had  for  the  most  part  been  sold  on 
account  of  overdue  mortgages  or  interest  and  trans- 
ferred to  the  aristocratic  usurers.  The  farmer  could 
thank  his  stars,  if  he  was  granted  permission  to  live 
as  a  tenant  on  one-sixth  of  the  product  of  his  labor  and 
to  pay  five-sixths  to  his  new  master  in  the  form  of 
rent.  Worse  still,  if  the  sale  of  the  lot  did  not  bring 
sufficient  returns  to  cover  the  debt,  or  if  such  a  debt 
had  been  contracted  without  a  lien,  then  the  debtor 
had  to  sell  his  children  into  slavery  abroad  in  order 
to  satisfy  the  claim  of  the  creditor.  The  sale  of  the 
children  by  the  father— that  was  the  first  fruit  of 
paternal  law  and  monogamy!  Ajid  if  that  did  not 
satisfy  the  bloodsuckers,  they  could  sell  the  debtor 
himself  into  slavery.  Such  was  the  pleasant  dawn 
of  civilization  among  the  people  of  Attica. 

Formerly,  while  the  condition  of  the  people  was  in 
keeping  with  gentile  traditions,  a  similar  downfall 
would  have  been  impossible.  But  here  it  had  come 
about,  nobody  knew  how.  Let  us  return  for  a  moment 
to  the  Iroquois.  The  state  of  things  that  had  imposed 
Itself  on  the  Athenians  almost  without  their  doing, 
so  to  say,  and  assuredly  against  their  will,  was  incon- 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   ATTIC    STATE  135 

ceivable  among  the  Indians.  There  the  ever  unchang- 
ing mode  of  production  could  at  no  time  generate  such 
conflicts  as  a  distinction  between  rich  and  poor,  ex- 
ploiters and  exploited,  caused  by  external  conditions. 
The  Iroquois  were  far  from  controlling  the  forces  of 
nature,  but  within  the  limits  drawn  for  them  by 
nature  they  dominated  their  own  production.  Apart 
from  a  failure  of  the  crops  in  their  little  gardens,  the 
exhaustion  of  the  fish  supply  in  their  lakes  and  rivers 
or  of  the  game  stock  in  their  forests,  they  always 
knew  what  would  be  the  outcome  of  their  mode  of 
gaining  a  living.  A  more  or  less  abundant  supply  of 
food,  that  would  come  of  it.  But  the  outcome  could 
never  be  any  unpremeditated  social  upheavals,  break- 
ing of  gentile  bonds  or  division  of  the  gentiles  against 
one  another  by  conflicting  class  interests.  Production 
was  earned  on  In  the  most  limited  manner;  but— the 
producers  controlled  their  own  product.  This  immense 
advantage  of  barbarian  production  was  lost  in  the 
transition  to  civilization.  To  win  it  back  on  the  basis 
of  man's  present  gigantic  control  of  nature  and  of  the 
free  association  rendered  possible  by  it,  that  will  be 
the  task  of  the  next  generations. 

Not  so  among  the  Greeks.  The  advent  of  private 
property  in  herds  of  cattle  and  articles  of  luxury  led 
to  an  exchange  between  individuals,  to  a  transforma- 
tion of  products  into  commodities.  Here  is  the  root  of 
the  entire  revolution  that  followed.  When  the  pro- 
ducers did  no  longer  consume  their  own  product,  but 
released  their  hold  of  it  in  exchange  for  another's 
product,  then  they  lost  the  control  of  it.  They  did 
not  know  any  more  what  became  of  it.  There  was  a 
possibility  that  the  product  might  be  turned  against 
the  producers  for  the  purpose  of  exploiting  and 
oppressing  them.  No  society  can,  therefore,  retain 
for  any  length  of  time  the  control  of  its  own  produc- 


136'  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

tion  and  of  the  social  effects  of  the  mode  of  production, 
unless  it  abolishes  exchange  between  individuals. 

How  rapidly  after  the  establishment  of  individual 
exchange  and  after  the  transformation  of  products 
into  commodities  the  product  manifests  its  rule 
over  the  producer,  the  Athenians  were  soon  to  learn. 
Along  with  the  production  of  marketable  commodi- 
ties came  the  tilling  of  the  soil  by  individual  cultiva- 
tors for  their  own  account,  soon  followed  by  indi- 
vidual ownership  of  the  land.  Along  came  also  the 
money,  that  general  commodity  for  which  all  others 
could  be  exchanged.  But  when  men  invented  money 
they  little  suspected  that  they  were  creating  a  new 
social  power,  that  one  universal  power  before  which 
the  whole  of  society  must  bow  down.  It  was  this  new 
power,  suddenly  sprung  into  existence  without  the 
forethought  and  intention  of  its  own  creators,  that 
vented  its  rule  on  the  Athenians  with  the  full  brutality 
of  youth. 

What  was  to  be  done?  The  old  gentile  organization 
had  not  only  proved  impotent  against  the  triumphant 
march  of  money;  it  was  also  absolutely  incapable  of 
containing  within  its  confines  any  such  thing  as 
money,  creditors,  debtors  and  forcible  collection  ot 
debts.  But  the  new  social  power  was  upon  them  and 
neither  pious  wishes  nor  a  longing  for  the  return  of 
the  good  old  times  could  drive  money  and  usury  from 
the  face  of  the  earth.  Moreover,  gentile  constitution 
had  suffered  a  number  of  minor  defeats.  The  indis- 
criminate mingling  of  the  gentiles  and  phrators  in  the 
whole  of  Attica,  and  especially  in  Athens,  had  assumed 
larger  proportions  from  generation  to  generation.  Still 
even  now  a  citizen  of  Athens  was  not  allowed  to  sell 
his  residence  outside  of  his  gens,  although  he  could 
do  so  with  plots  of  land.  The  division  of  labor  between 
the  different  branches  of  production— agriculture, 
trades,  numberless  specialties  within  the  trades,  com 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    ATTIC    STATE  137 

iierce,  navigation,  etc.— had  developed  more  fully  with 
the  progress  of  industry  and  traffic.  The  population 
was  now  divided  according  to  occupations  into  rather 
well  defined  groups,  everyone  of  which  had  separate 
interests  not  guarded  by  the  gens  or  phratry'  and 
therefore  necessitating  the  creation  of  new  offices. 
The  number  of  slaves  had  increased  considerably  and 
must  have  surpassed  by  far  that  of  the  free  Athenians 
even  at  this  early  stage.  Gentile  society  originally 
knew  no  slavery  and  was,  therefore,  ignorant  of  any 
means  to  hold  this  mass  of  bondsmen  in  check.  And 
finally,  commerce  had  attracted  a  great  many 
strangers  who  settled  in  Athens  for  the  sake  of  the 
easier  living  it  afforded.  According  to  the  old  con- 
stitution, the  strangers  had  neither  civil  rights  nor 
the  protection  of  the  law.  Though  tacitly  admitted 
by  tradition,  they  remained  a  disturbing  and  foreign 
element. 

In  short,  gentile  constitution  approached  its  doom. 
Society  was  daily  growing  more  and  more  beyond  it. 
It  was  powerless  to  stop  or  allay  even  the  most  dis- 
tressing evils  that  had  grown  under  its  very  eyes.  But 
in  the  meantime  the  state  had  secretly  developed.  The 
new  groups  formed  by  division  of  labor,  first  between 
city  and  country,  then  between  the  various  branches 
of  city  industry,  had  created  new  organs  for  the  care 
of  their  interests.  Public  offices  of  every  description 
had  been  instituted.  And  above  all  the  young  state 
needed  its  own  fighting  forces.  Among  the  seafaring 
Athenians  this  had  to  be  at  first  only  a  navy,  for  occa- 
sional short  expeditions  and  the  protection  of  the  mer- 
chant vessels.  At  some  uncertain  time  before  Solon, 
the  naukrariai  were  instituted,  little  territorial  dis- 
tricts, twelve  in  each  tribe.  Every  naukraria  had  to 
furnish,  equip  and  man  a  war  vessel  and  to  detail  two 
horsemen.  This  arrangement  was  a  twofold  attack 
on  the  gentile  constitution.  In  the  first  place  it  created 


138  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

a  public  power  of  coercion  that  did  no  longer  abso- 
lutely coincide  with  the  entirety  of  the  armed  nation. 
In  the  second  place  it  was  the  first  division  of  the 
people  for  public  purposes,  not  by  groups  of  kinship, 
but  by  local  residence.  We  shall  soon  see  what  that 
signified. 

As  the  gentile  constitution  could  not  come  to  the 
assistance  of  the  exploited  people,  they  could  look 
only  to  the  rising  state.  And  the  state  brought  help 
in  the  form  of  the  constitution  of  Solon.  At  the  same 
time  it  added  to  its  own  strength  at  the  expense  of  the 
old  constitution.  Solon  opened  the  series  of  so-called 
political  revolutions  by  an  infringement  on  private 
property.  We  pass  over  the  means  by  which  this 
reform  was  accomplished  in  the  year  594  B.  C.  or 
thereabout.  Ever  since,  all  revolutions  have  been 
revolutions  for  the  protection  of  one  kind  of  property 
against  another  kind  of  property.  They  cannot  protect 
one  kind  without  violating  another.  In  the  great 
French  revolution  the  feudal  property  was  sacrificed 
for  the  sake  of  saving  bourgeois  property.  In  Solon's 
revolution,  the  property  of  the  creditors  had  to  make 
concessions  to  the  property  of  the  debtors.  The  debts 
were  simply  declared  illegal.  We  are  not  acquainted 
with  the  accurate  details,  but  Solon  boasts  in  his 
poems  that  he  removed  the  mortgage  columns  from 
the  indented  lots  and  enabled  all  who  had  fled  or  been 
sold  abroad  for  debts  to  return  home.  This  was  only 
feasible  by  an  open  violation  of  private  property.  And 
indeed,  all  so-called  political  revolutions  were  started 
for  the  protection  of  one  kind  of  property  by  the  con- 
fiscation, also  called  theft,  of  another  kind  of  property. 
It  is  absolutely  true  that  for  more  than  2,500  years 
private  property  could  only  be  protected  by  the  viola- 
tion of  private  property. 

But  now  a  way  had  to  be  found  to  avoid  the  return 
of  such  an  enslavement  of  the  free  Athenians.    This 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   ATTIC    STATE  139 

was  first  attempted  by  general  measures,  e.  g,,  the 
prohibition  of  contracts  giving  the  person  of  the 
debtor  in  lien.  Furthermore  a  maximum  limit  was 
fixed  for  the  amount  of  land  any  one  individual  could 
own,  in  order  to  keep  the  craving  of  the  nobility  for 
the  land  of  the  farmers  within  reasonable  bounds. 
Constitutional  amendments  were  next  in  order.  The 
following  deserve  special  consideration: 

The  council  was  increased  to  four  hundred  members, 
one  hundred  from  each  tribe.  Here,  then,"  the  tribe 
still  served  as  a  basis.  But  this  was  the  only  remnant 
of  the  old  constitution  that  was  transferred  to  the 
new  body  politic.  For  otherwise  Solon  divided  the 
citizens  into  four  classes  according  to  their  property  in 
land  and  its  yield.  Five  hundred,  three  hundred  and 
one  hundred  and  fifty  medimnoi  of  grain  (1  medimnos 
equals  1.16  bushels)  were  the  minimum  yields  of  the 
first  three  classes.  Whoever  had  less  land  or  none  at 
all  belonged  to  the  fourth  class.  Only  members  of  the 
first  three  classes  could  hold  office;  the  highest  offices 
were  filled  by  the  first  class.  The  fourth  class  had 
only  the  right  to  speak  and  vote  in  the  public  council. 
But  here  all  officials  were  elected,  here  they  had  to 
give  account,  here  all  the  laws  were  made,  and  here 
the  fourth  class  was  in  the  majority.  The  aristocratic 
privileges  were  partly  renewed  in  the  form  of  priv- 
ileges of  wealth,  but  the  people  retained  the  decisive 
power.  The  four  classes  also  formed  the  basis  for  the 
reorganization  of  the  fighting  forces.  The  first  two 
classes  furnished  the  horsemen;  the  third  had  to  serve 
as  heavy  infantry;  the  fourth  was  employed  as  light 
unarmored  infantry  and  had  to  man  the  navy.  Prob- 
ably the  last  class  also  received  wages  in  this  case. 

An  entirely  new  element  is  thus  introduced  into  the 
constitution:  private  property.  The  rights  and  duties 
of  the  citizens  are  graduated  according  to  their  prop- 
erty in  land.    Wherever  the  classification  by  property 


140  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

gains  ground,  there  the  old  groups  of  blood  relation- 
ship give  way.  Gentile  constitution  has  suffered 
another  defeat. 

However,  the  gradation  of  political  rights  according 
to  private  property  was  not  one  of  those  institutions 
without  which  a  state  cannot  exist.  It  may  have  been 
ever  so  important  in  the  constitutional  development 
of  some  states.  Still  a  good  many  others,  and  the  most 
completely  developed  at  that,  had  no  need  of  it.  Even 
In  Athens  it  played  only  a  passing  role.  Since  the 
time  of  Aristides,  all  oflBces  were  open  to  all  the  citi- 
zens. 

During  the  nest  eighty  years  the  Athenian  society 
gradually  drifted  into  the  course  on  which  it  further 
developed  in  the  following  centuries.  The  outrageous 
land  speculation  of  the  time  before  Solon  had  been 
fettered,  likewise  the  excessive  concentration  of  prop- 
erty in  land.  Commerce,  trades  and  artisan  handi- 
crafts, which  were  carried  on  in  an  ever  larger  scale 
as  slave  labor  increased,  became  the  ruling  factors  in 
gaining  a  living.  Public  enlightenment  advanced.  In- 
stead of  exploiting  their  own  fellow  citizens  in  the 
old  brutal  style,  the  Athenians  now  exploited  mainly 
the  slaves  and  the  customers  outside.  Movable  prop- 
erty, wealth  in  money,  slaves  and  ships,  increased 
more  and  more.  But  instead  of  being  a  simple  means 
for  the  purchase  of  land,  as  in  the  old  stupid  times, 
it  had  now  become  an  end  in  itself.  The  new  class 
of  industrial  and  commercial  owners  of  wealth  now 
waged  a  victorious  competition  against  the  old  nobil- 
ity. The  remnants  of  the  old  gentile  constitution  lost 
their  last  hold.  The  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  the 
members  of  which  now  were  dispersed  all  over  Attica 
and  completely  intermixed,  had  thus  become  unavail- 
able as  political  groups.  A  great  many  citizens  of 
Athens  did  not  belong  to  any  gens.  They  were  immi- 
grants who  had  been  adopted  into  citizenship,  but  not 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   ATTIC    STATE  I4I 

mto  any  of  the  old  groups  of  kinship.  Besides,  there 
was  a  steadily  increasing  number  of  foreign  immi- 
grants who  were  only  protected  by  traditional  suf- 
ferance. 

Meanwhile  the  struggles  of  the  parties  proceeded. 
The  nobility  tried  to  regain  their  former  privileges  and 
for  a  short  time  recovered  their  supremacy,  until  the 
revolution  of  Kleisthenes  (509  B.  C.)  brought  their 
final  downfall  and  completed  the  ruin  of  gentile  law. 

In  his  new  constitution,  Kleisthenes  ignored  the  four 
old  ti'ibes  founded  on  the  gentes  and  phraties.  Their 
place  was  taken  by  an  entirely  new  organization  based 
on  the  recently  attempted  division  of  the  citizens  into 
naukrariai  according  to  residence.  No  longer  was 
membership  in  a  group  of  kindred  the  dominant  fact, 
but  simply  local  residence.  Not  the  nation,  but  the 
territory  was  now  divided;  the  inhabitants  became 
mere  political  fixtures  of  the  territory. 

The  whole  of  Attica  was  divided  into  one  hundred 
communal  districts,  so-called  demoi,  every  one  of 
which  was  autonomous.  The  citizens  living  in  a 
demos  (demotoi)  elected  their  official  head  (demarchos), 
treasurer  and  thirty  judges  with  jurisdiction  in  minor 
cases.  They  also  received  their  own  temple  and  divine 
guardian  or  heros,  whose  priest  they  elected.  The 
control  of  the  demos  was  in  the  hands  of  the  council 
of  demotoi.  This  is,  as  Morgan  correctly  remarks, 
the  prototype  of  the  autonomous  American  township. 
The  modern  state  in  its  highest  development  ended 
m  the  same  unit  with  which  the  rising  state  began  its 
career  in  Athens. 

Ten  of  these  units  (demoi)  formed  a  tribe,  which, 
however,  was  now  designated  as  local  tribe  in  order  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  old  sex  tribe.  The  local  tribe 
was  not  only  an  autonomous  political,  but  also  a  mili- 
tary group.  It  elected  the  phylarchos  or  tribal  head 
who  commanded  the  horsemen,  the  taxiarchos  com- 


142  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

manding  the  infantry  and  the  strategic  leader,  who 
was  in  command  of  the  entire  contingent  raised  in 
the  tribal  territory  by  conscription.  The  local  tribe 
furthermore  furnished,  equipped  and  fully  manned 
five  war  vessels.  It  was  designated  by  the  name  of 
the  Attic  hero  who  was  its  guardian  deity.  It  elected 
fifty  councilmen  into  the  council  of  Athens. 

Thus  we  arrive  at  the  Athenian  state,  governed  by 
a  council  of  five  hundred  elected  by  and  representing 
the  ten  tribes  and  subject  to  the  vote  of  the  public 
meeting,  where  every  citizen  could  enter  and  vote. 
Archons  and  other  officials  attended  to  the  different 
departments  of  administration  and  justice. 

By  this  new  constitution  and  by  the  admission  of  a 
large  number  of  aliens,  partly  freed  slaves,  partly 
immigrants,  the  organs  of  gentile  constitution  were 
displaced  in  public  affairs.  They  became  mere  private 
and  religious  clubs.  But  their  moral  influence,  the 
traditional  conceptions  and  views  of  the  old  gentile 
period,  survived  for  a  long  time  and  expired  only 
gradually.  This  was  evident  in  another  state  institu- 
tion. 

We  have  seen  that  an  essential  mark  of  the  state 
consists  in  a  public  power  of  coercion  divorced  from 
the  mass  of  the  people.  Athens  possessed  at  that 
time  only  a  militia  and  a-  navy  equipped  and  manned 
directly  by  the  people.  These  afforded  protection 
against  external  enemies  and  held  the  slaves  in 
check,  who  at  that  time  already  made  up  the 
large  majority  of  the  population.  For  the  citi- 
zens, this  coercive  power  at  first  only  ex- 
isted in  the  shape  of  the  police,  which  is  as  old 
as  the  state.  The  innocent  Frenchmen  of  the  18th 
century,  therefore,  had  the  habit  of  speaking  not  of 
civilized,  but  of  policed  nations  (nations  policies). 
The  Athenians,  then,  provided  for  a  police  in  their 
new  state,   a   vsritable   "force"   of  bowmen   on  foot 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    ATTIC    STATE  143 

and  horseback.  This  police  force  consisted— of  slaves. 
The  free  Athenian  regarded  this  police  duty  as  so 
degrading  that  he  preferred  being  arrested  by  an 
firmed  slave  rather  than  lending  himself  to  such  an 
ignominious  service.  That  was  still  a  sign  of  the  old 
gentile  spirit.  The  state  could  not  exist  without  a 
police,  but  as  yet  it  was  too  young  and  did  not  com- 
mand suflScient  moral  respect  to  give  prestige  to  an 
occupation  that  necessarily  appeared  ignominious  to 
the  old  gentiles. 

How  well  this  state,  now  completed  in  its  main  out- 
lines, suited  the  social  condition  of  the  Athenians  was 
apparent  by  the  rapid  growth  of  wealth,  commerce 
and  industry.  The  distinction  of  classes  on  which  the 
social  and  political  institutions  are  resting  was  no 
longer  between  nobility  and  common  people,  but  be- 
tween slaves  and  freemen,  aliens  and  citizens.  At 
the  time  of  the  greatest  prosperity  the  whole  number 
of  free  Athenian  citizens,  women  and  children  in- 
cluded, amounted  to  about  90,000;  the  slaves  of  both 
sexes  numbered  365,000  and  the  aliens— foreigners  and 
freed  slaves~45,000.  Per  capita  of  each  adult  citizen 
there  were,  therefore,  at  least  eighteen  slaves  and 
more  than  two  aliens.  The  great  number  of  slaves  is 
explained  by  the  fact  that  many  of  them  worlied 
together  in  large  factories  under  supervision.  The 
development  of  commerce  and  industry  brought  about 
an  accumulation  and  concentration  of  wealth  in  a 
few  hands.  The  mass  of  the  free  citizens  were  im- 
poverished and  had  to  face  the  choice  of  either  com- 
peting with  their  own  labor  against  slave  labor,  which 
was  considered  ignoble  and  vile,  besides  promising 
little  success,  or  to  be  ruined.  Under  the  prevailing 
circumstances  they  necessarily  chose  the  latter  course 
and  being  in  the  majority  they  ruined  the  whole  Attic 
state.  Not  democracy  caused  the  downfall  of  Athens, 
as  the  European  glorifiers  of  princes  and  lickspittle 


144  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

schoolmasters  would  have  us  believe,    but    slavery 
ostracizing  the  labor  of  the  free  citizen. 

The  origin  of  the  state  among  the  Athenians  pre- 
sents a  very  typical  form  of  state  organization.  For 
it  took  place  without  any  marring  external  interfer- 
ence or  internal  obstruction— the  usurpation  of  Pisls- 
tratos  left  no  trace  of  its  short  duration.  It  shows  the 
direct  rise  of  a  highly  developed  form  of  a  state,  the 
democratic  republic,  out  of  gentile  society.  And 
finally,  we  are  sufficiently  acquainted  with  all  the 
essential  details  of  the  process. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

GENS  AND  STATE  IN  ROME. 

The  legend  of  the  foundation  of  Rome  sets  forth  that 
the  first  colonization  was  undertaken  by  a  number  of 
Latin  gentes  (one  hundred,  so  the  legend  says)  united 
into  one  tribe.  A  Sabellian  tribe  (also  said  to  consist 
of  one  hundred  gentes)  soon  followed,  and  finally  a 
third  tribe  of  various  elements,  but  again  numbering 
one  hundred  gentes,  joined  them.  The  whole  tale 
reveals  at  the  first  glance  that  little  more  than  the 
gens  was  borrowed  from  reality,  and  that  the  gens 
itself  was  in  certain  cases  only  an  offshoot  of  an  old 
mother  gens  still  existing  at  home.  The  tribes  bear 
the  mark  of  artificial  composition  on  their  foreheads; 
still  they  were  made  up  of  kindred  elements  and 
after  the  model  of  the  old  spontaneous,  not  artificial 
tribe.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  impossible  that  a 
genuine  old  tribe  formed  the  nucleus  of  every  one  of 
these  three  tribes.  The  connecting  link,  the  phratry, 
contained  ten  gentes  and  was  called  curia.  Hence 
there  were  thirty  curiae. 

The  Roman  gens  is  recognized  as  an  institution 
identical  with  the  Grecian  gens.  The  Grecian  gens 
being  a  continuation  of  the  same  social  unit,  the 
primordial  form  of  which  we  found  among  the  Amer- 
ican Indians,  the  same  holds  naturally  good  of  the 
Roman  gens,  and  we  can  be  more  concise  in  its  treat- 
ment. 

At  least  during  the  most  ancient  times  of  the  city, 
the  Roman  gens  had  the  following  constitution: 

1.  Mutual  right  of  inheritance    for    gentiles;    the 


146'  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

wealth  remained  in  the  gens.  Paternal  law  being 
already  in  force  in  the  Roman  the  same  as  in  the 
Grecian  gens,  the  offspring  of  female  lineage  were 
excluded.  According  to  the  law  of  the  twelve  tablets, 
the  oldest  written  law  of  Rome  known  to  us,  the  nat- 
ural children  had  the  first  title  to  the  estate;  in  case 
no  natural  children  existed,  the  agnati  (kin  of  male 
lineage)  took  their  place;  and  last  in  line  came  the 
gentiles.  In  all  cases  the  property  remained  fn  the 
gens.  Here  we  observe  the  gradual  introduction  of 
new  legal  provisions,  caused  by  increased  wealth  and 
monogamy,  into  the  gentile  practice.  The  originally 
equal  right  of  inheritance  of  the  gentiles  was  first 
limited  in  practice  to  the  agnati,  no  doubt  at  a  very 
remote  date,  and  afterwards  to  the  natural  children 
and  their  offspring  of  male  lineage.  Of  course  this 
appears  in  the  reverse  order  on  the  twelve  tablets. 

2.  Possession  of  a  common  burial  ground.  The 
patrician  gens  Claudia,  on  immigrating  into  Rome 
from  Regilli,  was  assigned  to  a  separate  lot  of  land 
and  received  its  own  burial  ground  in  the  city.  As 
late  as  the  time  of  Augustus,  the  head  of  Varus,  who 
had  been  killed  in  the  Teutoburger  Wald,  was  brought 
to  Rome  and  interred  in  the  gentilitius  tumulus;  hence 
his  gens  (Quinctilia)  still  had  its  own  tomb. 

3.  Common  religious  rites.  These  are  well-known 
under  the  name  of  sacra  gentilitia. 

4.  Obligation  not  to  intermarry  in  the  gens.  It 
seems  that  this  was  never  a  written  law  in  Rome,  but 
the  custom  remained.  Among  the  innumerable  names 
of  Roman  couples  preserved  for  us  there  is  not  a  single 
case,  where  husband  and  wife  had  the  same  gentile 
name.  The  law  of  inheritance  proves  the  same  rule. 
By  marrying,  a  woman  loses  her  agnatic  privileges, 
discards  her  gens,  and  neither  she  nor  her  children 
have  any  title  to  her  father's  estate  nor  to  that  of  his 
brothers,   because   otherwise  the  gens  of  her  father 


GENS    AND    STATE    IN    ROME  147 

would  lose  his  property.  This  rule  has  a  meaning  only- 
then  when  the  woman  is  not  permitted  to  marry  a 
gentile. 

5.  A  common  piece  of  land.  In  primeval  days  this 
was  always  obtained  when  the  tribal  territory  was 
first  divided.  Among  the  Latin  tribes  we  find  the 
land  partly  in  the  possession  of  the  tribe,  partly  of  the 
gens,  and  partly  of  the  households  that  could  hardly 
represent  single  families  at  such  an  early  date. 
Romulus  is  credited  with  being  the  first  to  assign  land 
to  single  individuals,  about  2.47  acres  (two  jugera)  per 
head.  But  later  on  we  still  find  some  land  in  the  hands 
of  the  gentes,  not  to  mention  the  state  land,  around 
which  turns  the  whole  internal  history  of  the  republic. 

6.  Duty  of  the  gentiles  to  mutually  protect  and  assist 
one  another.  Written  history  records  only  remnants 
of  this  law.  The  Roman  state  from  the  outset  mani- 
fested such  superior  power,  that  the  duty  of  protec- 
tion against  injury  devolved  upon  it.  When  Appius 
Claudius  was  arrested,  his  whole  gens,  including  his 
personal  enemies,  dressed  in  mourning.  At  the  time 
of  the  second  Punic  war  the  gentes  united  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ransoming  their  captured  gentiles.  The  senate 
vetoed  this. 

7.  Right  to  bear  the  gentile  name.  This  was  in  force 
until  the  time  of  the  emperors.  Freed  slaves  were 
permitted  to  assume  the  gentile  name  of  their  former 
master,  but  this  did  not  bestow  any  gentile  rights  on 
them. 

8.  Right  of  adopting  strangers  into  the  gens.  This 
was  done  by  adoption  into  the  family  (the  same  as 
among  the  Indians)  which  brought  with  it  the  adoption 
into  the  gens. 

9.  The  right  to  elect  and  depose  chiefs  is  not  men- 
tioned anywhere.  But  inasmuch  as  during  the  first 
years  of  Rome's  existence  all  offices  were  filled  by 
election  or  nomination,  from  the  king  downward,  and 


148  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

as  the  curiae  elected  also  their  own  priests,  we  are 
justified  in  assuming  the  same  in  regard  to  gentile 
chiefs  (principes)— no  matter  how  well  established  the 
rule  of  choosing  the  candidates  from  the  same  family- 
have  been. 

Such  were  the  constitutional  rights  of  a  Roman  gens. 
With  the  exception  of  the  completed  transition  to 
paternal  law,  they  are  the  true  image  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  an  Iroquois  gens.  Here,  also,  "the  Iroquois 
is  still  plainly  visible." 

How  confused  the  ideas  of  our  historians,  even  the 
most  prominent  of  them,  are  when  it  comes  to  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  Roman  gens,  is  shown  by  the  following 
example:  In  Mommsen's  treatise  on  the  Roman  fam- 
ily names  of  the  Republican  and  Augustinian  era 
(Romische  Forschungen,  Berlin,  1864,  Vol.  I.)  he 
writes:  "The  gentile  name  was  not  only  borne  by  ail 
male  gentiles  including  all  adopted  and  wards,  except, 
of  course,  the  slaves,  but  also  by  the  women,  .  .  . 
The  tribe  (so  Mommsen  translates  gens)  is  a  common 
organization  resulting  from  a  common— actual,  as- 
sumed or  even  invented— ancestor  and  united  by  com- 
mon rites,  burial  grounds  and  customs  of  inheritance. 
All  free  individuals,  hence  women  also,  may  and  must 
claim  membership  in  them.  But  the  definition  of  the 
gentile  name  of  the  married  women  offers  some  dif- 
ficulty. This  is  indeed  obviated,  as  long  as  women 
were  not  permitted  to  marry  any  one  but  their  gen- 
tiles. And  we  have  proofs  that  for  a  long  time  the 
women  found  it  much  more  diflicult  to  marry  outside 
than  inside  of  the  gens.  This  right  of  marrying  out- 
side, the  gentis  enuptio,  was  still  bestowed  as  a  per- 
sonal privilege  and  reward  during  the  sixth  century. 
.  .  .  But  wherever  such  outside  marriages  occurred 
in  primeval  times,  the  woman  must  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  tribe  of  her  husband.  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  by  the  old  religious  marriage  woman 


GENS    AND    STATE    IN    ROME  149 

was  completely  adopted  into  the  legal  and  sacramental 
group  of  her  husband  and  divorced  from  her  own. 
Who  does  not  know  that  the  married  woman  releases 
her  active  and  passive  right  of  inheritance  in  favor  of 
ber  gentiles,  but  enters  the  legal  group  of  her  hus- 
band, her  children  and  his  gentiles?  And  if  her  hus- 
band adopts  her  as  his  child  into  his  family,  how  can 
she  remain  separated  from  his  gens?"    (Pages  9-11.) 

Here  Mommsen  asserts  that  the  Roman  women  be- 
longing to  a  certain  gens  were  originally  free  to  marry 
only  within  their  gens;  the  Roman  gens,  according  to 
him,  was  therefore  endogamous,  not  exogamous.  This 
opinion  which  contradicts  the  evidence  of  all  other 
nations,  is  principally,  if  not  exclusively,  founded  on 
a  single  much  disputed  passage  of  Livy  (Book  xxxix, 
c.  19).  According  to  this  passage,  the  senate  decreed 
in  the  year  568  of  the  city,  i.  e.,  186  B.  C,  (uti  Feceniae 
Hispallae  datio,  deminutio,gentis  enuptio,  tutoris  optio 
idem  esset  quasi  ei  vir  testamento  dedisset;  utique  ei 
ingenuo  nubere  liceret,  neu  quid  ei  qui  eam  duxisset, 
ob  id  fraudi  ignominiaeve  esset)— that  Fecenia  His- 
palla  shall  have  the  right  to  dispose  of  her  property, 
to  diminish  it,  to  marry  outside  of  the  gens,  to  choose 
a  guardian,  just  as  if  her  (late)  husband  had  con- 
ferred this  right  on  her  by  testament;  that  she  shall 
be  permitted  to  marry  a  freeman  and  that  for  the 
man  who  marries  her  this  shall  not  constitute  a  mis- 
demeanor or  a  shame. 

Without  a  doubt  Fecenia,  a  freed  slave,  here  obtains 
permission  to  marry  outside  of  the  gens.  And  equally 
doubtless  the  husband  here  has  the  right  to  confer 
oil  his  wife  by  testament  the  right  to  marry  outside  of 
the  gens  after  his  death.    But  outside  of  which  gens? 

If  a  woman  had  to  intermarry  in  the  gens,  as  Momm- 
sen assumes,  then  she  remained  in  this  gens  after  her 
marriage.  But  in  the  first  place,  this  assertion  of  an 
endogamous  gens  must  be  proven.    And  in  the  second 


150  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

place,  if  the  women  had  to  intermarry  in  the  gens, 
then  the  men  had  to  do  the  same,  otherwise  there 
could  be  no  marriage.  Then  we  arrive  at  the  con- 
elusion  that  the  man  could  bequeath  a  right  to  his 
wife,  which  he  did  not  have  for  himself.  This  is  a 
legal  impossibility.  Mommsen  feels  this  very  well, 
and  hence  he  supposes:  "The  marriage  outside  of  the 
gens  most  probably  required  not  only  the  consent  of 
the  testator,  but  of  all  gentiles."  (Page  10,  footnote.) 
This  is  not  only  a  very .  daring  assertion,  but  con- 
tradicts also  the  clear  wording  of  the  passage.  The 
senate  gives  her  this  right  as  a  proxy  of  her  husband; 
they  expressly  give  her  no  more  and  no  less  than  her 
husbajid  could  have  given  her,  but  what  they  do  give 
is  an  absolute  right,  independent  of  all  limitations,  so 
that,  if  she  should  make  use  of  it,  her  new  husband 
shall  not  suffer  in  consequence.  The  senate  even 
instructs  the  present  and  future  consuls  and  praetors 
to  see  that  no  inconvenience  arise  to  her  from  the  use' 
of  this  right.  Mommsen's  supposition  is  therefore  ab- 
solutely inadmissible. 

Then  again:  suppose  a  woman  married  a  man  from 
another  gens,  but  remained  in  her  own  gens.  Accord- 
ing to  the  passage  quoted  above,  her  husband  would 
then  have  had  the  right  to  permit  his  wife  to  marry 
outside  of  her  own  gens.  That  is,  he  would  have  had 
the  right  to  make  provisions  in  regard  to  the  aftairs  of 
a  gens  to  which  he  did  not  belong  at  all.  The  thing  is 
so  utterly  unreasonable  that  we  need  not  lose  any 
words  about  it. 

Nothing  remains  but  to  assume  that  the  woman  in 
her  first  marriage  wedded  a  man  from  another  gens 
and  thereby  became  a  member  of  her  husband's  gens. 
Mommsen  admits  this  for  such  cases.  Then  the  whole 
matter  at  once  explains  itself.  The  women,  torn  away 
from  her  old  gens  by  her  marriage  and  adopted  into 
the  gentile  group  of  her  husband,  occupies  a  peculiar 


GENS    AND    STATE    IN    ROME  ISI 

position  in  the  new  gens.  She  is  now  a  gentile,  but 
not  a  kin  by  blood.  The  manner  of  her  entrance 
from  the  outset  excludes  all  prohibition  of  intermar- 
rying in  the  gens,  into  which  she  has  come  by  mar- 
riage. She  is  adopted  into  the  family  relations  of  the 
gens  and  inherits  some  of  the  property  of  her  husband 
when  he  dies,  the  property  of  a  gentile.  What  is 
more  natural  than  that  this  property  should  remain  in 
the  gens  and  that  she  should  be  obliged  to  marry  a 
gentile  of  her  husband  and  no  other?  If,  however, 
an  exception  is  to  be  made,  who  is  so  well  entitled  to 
authorize  her  as  her  first  husband  who  bequeathed  his 
property  to  her?  At  the  moment  when  he  bequeathes 
on  her  a  part  of  his  property  and  simultaneously  gives 
her  permission  to  transfer  this  property  by  marriage 
or  as  a  result  of  marriage  to  a  strange  gens,  he  still 
is  the  owner  of  this  property,  hence  he  literally  dis- 
poses of  his  personal  property.  As  for  the  woman  and 
her  relation  to  the  gens  of  her  husband,  it  is  he  who 
by  an  act  of  his  own  free  will— the  marriage — intro- 
duced her  into  his  gens.  Therefore  it  seems  quite  nat- 
ural that  he  should  be  the  proper  person  to  authorize 
her  to  leave  this  gens  by  another  marriage.  In  short, 
the  matter  appears  simple  and  obvious,  as  soon  as  we 
discard  the  absurd  conception  of  an  endogamous 
Roman  gens  and  accept  Morgan's  originally  exogam- 
ous  gens. 

There  is  still  another  view  which  has  probably  found 
the  greatest  number  of  advocates.  According  to  them 
the  passage  in  Livy  only  means  ''that  freed  slave  girls 
(libertae)  cannot  without  special  permission,  e  gente 
enubere  (marry  outside  of  the  gens)  or  undertake  any 
of  the  steps  which,  together  with  capitis  deminutio 
minima*  (the  loss  of  family  rights)  would  lead  to  a 


Translator's  note. 

*The  term  caput  received  the  meaning  of  legal  right  of 
a  person  from  the  legal  status  of  the  head  of  a  family. 


152  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

transfer  of  the  liberta  to  another  gens."  (Lange, 
Romische  Alterthiimer,  Berlin,  1856,  I,  p.  185,  where 
our  passage  from  Livy  is  explained  by  a  reference 
to  Huschke.)  If  this  view  is  correct,  then  the  passage 
proves  still  less  for  the  relations  of  free  Roman 
women,  and  there  is  so  much  less  ground  for  speaking 
of  their  obligation  to  intermarry  in  the  gens. 

The  expression  enuptio  gentis  (marriage  outside  of 
the  gens)  occurs  only  in  this  single  passage  and  is  not 
found  anywhere  else  in  the  entire  Roman  literature. 
The  word  enubere  (to  marry  outside)  is  found  only 
three  times  likewise  in  Livy,  and  not  in  reference  to 
the  gens.  The  phantastic  idea  that  Roman  women 
had  to  intermarry  in  the  gens  owes  its  existence  only 
to  this  single  passage.  But  it  cannot  be  maintained. 
For  either  the  passage  refers  to  special  restrictions  for 
freed  slave  women,  in  which  case  it  proves  nothing 
for  free  women  (ingenuae).  Or  it  applies  also  to  free 
women,  in  which  case  it  rather  proves  that  the  women 
as  a  rule  married  outside  of  the  gens  and  were  trans- 
ferred by  their  marriage  to  their  husbands'  gens.  This 
would  be  a  point  for  Morgan  against  Mommsen. 

Almost  three  hundred  years  after  the  foundation  of 
Rome  the  gentile  bonds  were  still  so  strong  that  a 
patrician  gens,  the  Fabians,  could  obtain  permission 
from  the  senate  to  undertake  all  by  itself  a  war  expe- 
dition against  the  neighboring  town  of  Veil.  Three 
hundred  and  six  Fabians  are  said  to  have  marched 


Legal  science  extended  the  meaning  of  the  term 

so  that  it  related  not  alone  to  slaves,  but  also  to  minors 
and  women.  This  legal  right,  so  conceived,  could  be  curtailed 
in  three  ways:  Capitis  deminutio  maxima  was  the  loss  of 
the  status  libertatis  (personal  liberty),  which  included  the 
loss  of  the  status  civitatis  and  familiae  (civil  and  family 
rights);  the  capitis  deminutio  minor  or  media  was  the  loss 
of  the  status  civitatis  (civil  rights),  including  the  loss  of  the 
status  familiae  (family  rights);  the  capitis  deminutio  minima, 
was  the  loss  of  the  status  familiae  (family  rights).  Lange, 
Romische  Alterthumer.  Berlin,  1876,  Vol.  I.,  p.  20i. 


GENS    AND    STATE    IN    ROME  153 

and  to  have  been  killed  from  ambush.  Only  one  boy 
was  left  behind  to  propagate- the  gens. 

Ten  gentes,  we  said,  formed  a  phratry,  named  curia. 
It  was  endowed  with  more  important  functions  than 
the  Grecian  phratry.  Every  cmria  had  its  own  relig- 
ious rites,  sacred  possessions  and  priests.  The  priests 
of  one  curia  in  a  body  formed  one  of  the  Roman  cler- 
ical collegiums.  Ten  curiae  formed  a  tribe  which 
probably  had  originally  its  own  elected  chief— leader  in 
war  and  high  priest— like  the  rest  of  the  Latin  tribes. 
The  three  tribes  together  formed  the  populus  Ro- 
manus,  the  Roman  people. 

Hence  nobody  could  belong  to  the  Roman  people, 
unless  he  was  a  member  of  a  Roman  gens,  and  thus 
a  member  of  a  curia  and  tribe.  The  first  constitution 
of  the  Roman  people  was  as  follows.  Public  affairs 
were  conducted  by  the  Senate  composed,  as  Niebuhr 
was  the  first  to  state  correctly,  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
three  hundred  gentes.  Because  they  were  the  elders 
of  the  gentes  they  were  called  patres,  fathers,  and  as  a 
body  senatus,  council  of  elders,  from  senex,  old.  Here 
also  the  customary  choice  of  men  from  the  same  fam- 
ily of  the  gens  brought  to  life  the  first  hereditary  no- 
bility. These  families  were  called  patricians  and 
claimed  the  exclusive  right  to  the  seats  in  the  senate 
and  to  all  other  offices.  The  fact  that  in  the  course  of 
time  the  people  admitted  this  claim  so  that  it  became 
an  actual  privilege  is  confirmed  by  the  legendary  re- 
port that  Romulus  bestowed  the  rank  of  patrician  and 
its  privileges  on  the  first  senators.  The  senate,  like 
the  Athenian  boul§,  had  to  make  the  final  decision  in 
many  affairs  and  to  undertake  the  preliminary  discus- 
sion of  more  important  matters,  especially  of  new 
laws.  These  were  settled  by  the  public  meeting,  the 
so-called  comitia  curiata  (assembly  of  curiae.)  The 
people  met  in  curiae,  probably  grouped  by  gentes,  and 
every  one  of  the  thirty  curiae  had  one  vote.      The 


154  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

assembly  of  curiae  adopted  or  rejected  all  laws, 
elected  all  higher  officials  including  the  rex  (so-called 
king),  declared  war  (but  the  senate  concluded  peace), 
and  decided  as  a  supreme  court,  on  appeal,  all  cases 
Involving  capital  punisliment  of  Roman  citizens.  By 
the  side  of  th^e  senate  and  the  public  meeting  stood  the 
rex,  corresponding  to  the  Grecian  basileus,  and  by  no 
means  such  an  almost  absolute  king  as  Mommsen 
would  have  it.*  The  rex  was  also  a  military  leader, 
a  high  priest  and  a  chairman  of  certain  courts.  He 
had  no  other  functions,  nor  any  power  over  life,  lib- 
erty and  property  of  the  citizens,  except  such  as  re- 
sulted from  his  disciplinary  power  as  military  leader 
or  from  his  executive  power  as  president  of  a  court. 
The  office  of  rex  was  not  hereditary.  On  the  contrary, 
he  was  elected,  probably  on  the  suggestion  of  his  pre- 
decessor, by  the  assembly  of  curiae  and  then  solemnly 
Invested  by  a  second  assembly.  That  he  could  also  be 
deposed  is  proved  by  the  fate  of  Tarquinius  Superbus. 
As  the  Greeks  at  the  time  of  the  heroes,  so  the  Bo- 
mans  at  the  time  of  the  so-called  kings  lived  in  a 
military  democracy  based  on  and  developed  from  a 
constitution  of  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes.  What 
though  the  curiae  and  tribes  were  partly  artificial 
formations,  they  were  moulded  after  the  genuine  and 
spontaneous  models  of  a  society  from  which  they  orig- 
inated and  that  still  surrounded  them  on    all  sides. 

Author's  note. 

*The  Latin  rex  Ig  equivalent  to  the  Celtic-I?ish  rlgh 
(tribal  chief)  and  the  Gothic  reiks.  That  this,  like  the  German 
Furst.  English  first  and  Danish  forste,  originally  signified 
gentile  or  tribal  chief  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Goths 
in  the  fourth  century  already  had  a  special  term  for  the 
king  of  later  times,  the  military  chief  of  a  Tvhole  nation, 
viz.,  thiudans.  In  Ulfila's  translation  of  the  Bible  Artaxerses 
and  Herod  are  never  called  reiks,  but  thiudans,  and  the 
empire  of  the  emperor  Tiberius  not  reiki,  but  thiudinassus.  In 
the  name  of  the  Gothic  thiudans.  or  king  as  we  inaccurately 
translate.  Thiudareiks  (Theodoric,  German  Dietrich),  both 
names  flow  together. 


GENS    AND    STATE    IN    ROME  ISS 

And  though  the  sturdy  patrician  nobility  had  already 
gained  ground,  though  the  reges  attempted  gradually 
to  enlarge  the  scope  of  their  functions— all  this  does 
not  change  the  elementary  and  fundamental  character 
of  the  constitution,  and  this  alone  is  essential. 

Meantime  the  population  of  the  city  of  Rome  and 
of  the  Roman  territory,  enlarged  by  conquest ,  in- 
creased partly  by  immigration,  partly  through  the 
inhabitants  of  the  annexed  districts,  Latins  most  of 
them.  All  these  new  members  of  the  state  (we  disre- 
gard here  the  clients)  stood  outside  of  the  old  gentes, 
curiae  and  tribes  and  so  did  not  form  a  part  of  the 
populus  Romanus,  the  Roman  people  proper.  They 
were  personally  free,  could  own  land,  bad  to  pay  taxes 
and  were  subject  to  military  service.  But  they  were 
not  eligible  to  office  and  could  neither  take  part  in 
the  assembly  of  curiae  nor  in  the  distribution  of  con- 
quered state  lands.  They  made  up  the  mass  of  people 
excluded  from  all  public  rights,  the  plebs.  By  their 
continually  growing  numbers,  their  military  training 
and  armament  they  became  a  threat  for  the  old  popu- 
lus who  now  closed  their  ranks  hermetically  against 
all  new  elements.  The  land  seems  to  have  been  about 
evenly  divided  between  populus  and  plebs,  while  the 
mercantile  and  industrial  wealth,  though  as  yet  not 
very  considerable,  may  have  been  mainly  in  the  hands 
of  the  plebs. 

In  view  of  the  utter  darkness  that  enwraps  the 
whole  legendary  origin  of  Rome's  historical  beginning 
—a  darkness  that  was  rendered  still  more  intense  by 
the  rationalistic  and  overofficious  interpretations  and 
reports  of  the  juristically  trained  authors  that  wrote 
on  the  subject— it  is  impossible  to  make  any  definite 
statements  about  the  time,  the  course  and  the  motive 
of  the  revolution  that  put  an  end  to  the  old  gentile 
constitution.     We  are  certain  only  that   the    causes 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   FAMILY  156 

arose  out  of  the  fights  between  the  plebs  and  the 
populus. 

The  new  constitution,  attributed  to  ^x  Servius 
Tullius  and  following  the  Grecian  model,  more  espe- 
cially that  of  Solon,  created  a  new  public  assembly 
including  or  excluding  all  the  members  of  populus  and 
plebs  according  to  whether  they  rendered  military  ser- 
vice or  not.  The  whole  population,  subject  to  enlist- 
ment, was  divided  into  six  classes  according  to  wealth. 
The  lowest  limitis  in  the  five  highest  classes  were: 
I.,  100,000  ass;  II.,  75,000;  III.,  50,000;  IV.,  25,000; 
v.,  11,000;  which  according  to  Bureau  de  la  Malle  is 
equal  to  about  $3,155,  $2,333,  $1,555,  $800,  and  $388. 
The  sixth  class,  the  proletarians,  consisted  of  those 
who  possessed  less  and  were  exempt  from  military 
service  and  taxes.  In  this  new  assembly  of  centuriae 
(comitia  centuriata)  the  citizens  formed  ranks  after 
the  manner  of  soldiers,  in  companies  of  one  hundred 
(centuria),  and  every  centuria  had  one  vote.  Now  the 
first  class  placed  80  centuriae  in  the  field;  the  second 
22,  the  third  20,  the  fourth  22,  the  fifth  30  and  the 
sixth,  for  propriety's  sake,  one.  To  this  were  added 
18  centuriae  of  horsemen  composed  of  the  most 
wealthy.  Hence,  there  were  193  centuriae,  giving  a 
lowest  majority  vote  of  97.  Now  the  horsemen  and 
the  first  class  alone  had  together  98  votes.  Being  in 
the  majority,  they  had  only  to  agree,  and  they  could 
pass  any  resolution  without  asking  the  consent  of  the 
other  classes. 

This  new  assembly  of  centuriae  assumed  all  the 
political  rights  of  the  former  assembly  of  curiae,  a  few 
nominal  privileges  excepted.  The  curiae  and  the 
gentes  composing  them  now  were  degraded  to  mere 
private  and  religious  congregations,  analogous  to  their 
Attic  prototypes,  and  as  such  they  vegetated  on  for  a 
long  time.  But  the  assembly  of  curiae  soon  became 
obsolete.    In  order  to  drive  also  the  three  old  tribes  out 


GENS    AND    STATE    IN    ROME  157 

of  existence,  a  system  of  four  local  tribes  was  intro- 
duced. Every  tribe  was  assigned  to  one  quarter  of  the 
city  and  received  certain  political  rights. 

Thus  the  old  social  order  of  blood  kinship  was  de- 
stroyed also  in  Rome  even  before  the  abolition  of  the 
so-called  royalty.  A  new  constitution,  founded  on 
territorial  division  and  difference  of  wealth  took  its 
place  and  virtually  created  the  state.  The  public 
power  of  coercion  consisted  here  of  citizens  liable  to 
military  duty,  to  be  used  against  the  slaves  and  the 
so-called  proletarians  who  were  excluded  from  mili- 
tary service  and  general  armament. 

After  the  expulsion  of  the  last  rex,  Tarquinius  Su- 
perbus,  who  had  really  usurped  royal  power,  the  new 
constitution  was  further  improved  by  the  institution 
of  two  military  leaders  (consuls)  with  equal  powers, 
analogous  to  the  custom  of  the  Iroquois.  The  whole 
history  of  the  Roman  republic  moves  inside  of  this 
constitution:  the  struggles  between,  patricians  and 
plebs  for  admission  to  office  and  participation  in  the 
allotment  of  state  lands,  the  merging  of  the  patrician 
nobility  in  the  new  class  of  large  property  and  money 
owners;  the  gradual  absorption  by  the  latter  of  all 
the  land  of  the  small  holders  who  had  been  ruined  by 
military  service;  the  cultivation  of  these  enormous 
new  tracts  by  slaves;  the  resulting  depopulation  of 
Italy  which  not  only  opened  the  doors  to  the  Imperial 
tyrants,  but  also  to  their  successors,  the  German  bar- 
barians. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  GBN(S  AMONG  CEILTS  AND  GERMANS. 

Space  forbids  a  consideration  of  the  gentile  institu- 
tions found  in  a  more  or  less  pure  form  among  the  sav- 
age and  barbarian  races  of  the  present  day;  or  of  the 
traces  of  such  institutions,  discovered  in  the  ancient 
history  of  civilized  nations  in  Asia.  One  or  the  other 
are  met  everywhere.  A  few  illustrations  may  suffice: 
Even  before  the  gens  had  been  recognized,  it  was 
pointed  out  and  accurately  described  in  its  main  out- 
lines by  the  man  who  took  the  greatest  pains  to  mis- 
understand it,  MacLennan,  who  wrote  of  this  institu- 
tion among  the  Kalmucks,  the  Circassians,  the 
Samoyeds  and  three  Indian  nations:  the  Warals,  the 
Magars  and  the  Munnipurs.  Recently  it  was  de- 
scribed by  M.  Kovalevsky,  who  discovered  it  among 
the  Pshavs,  Shevsurs,  Svanets  and  other  Caucasian 
tribes.  A  few  short  notes  about  the  existence  of  the 
gens  among  Celts  and  Germans  may  find  a  place  here. 

The  oldest  Celtic  laws  preserved  for  us  still  show  the 
gens  in  full  bloom.  In  Ireland,  it  is  alive  in  the  popu- 
lar instinct  to  this  day,  after  it  has  been  forced  out  of 
actual  existence  by  the  English.  It  was  in  full  force 
In  Scotland  until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, and  here  it  also  succumbed  only  to  the  weapons, 
laws  and  courts  of  the  English. 

The  old  Welsh  laws,  written  several  centuries  before 
the  English  invasion,  not  later  than  the  11th  century, 
still  show  collective  agriculture  of  whole  villages, 
although  only  exceptionally  and  as  the  survival  of  a 
former  universal  custom.  Every  family  had  five  acres 
for  its  special  use;  another  lot  was  at  the  same  time 


I 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS        159 

cultivated  collectively  and  its  yield  divided  among 
the  different  families.  In  view  of  Irish  and  Scotch 
analogies  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  these  village  com- 
munities represent  gentes  or  subdivisions  of  gentes, 
even  though  a  repeated  investigation  of  the  Welsh 
laws,  which  I  cannot  undertalie  from  lack  of  time  (my 
notes  are  from  1869),  should  not  directly  corroborate 
this.  One  thing,  however,  is  plainly  proven  by  the 
Welsh  and  Irish  laws,  namely  that  the  pairing  family 
had  not  yet  given  way  to  monogamy  among  the  Celts 
of  the  11th  century.  In  Wales,  marriage  did  not  be- 
come indissoluble  by  divorce,  or  rather  by  notification, 
until  after  seven  years.  Even  if  no  more  than  three 
nights  were  lacking  to  make  up  the  seven  years,  a 
married  couple  could  still  separate.  Their  property 
was  divided  among  them:  the  woman  made  the  di- 
vision, the  man  selected  his  share.  The  furniture  was 
divided  according  to  certain  very  funny  rules.  If  the 
marriage  was  dissolved  by  the  man,  he  had  to  return 
the  woman's  dowry  and  a  few  other  articles;  if  the 
woman  wished  a  separation,  then  she  received  less. 
Of  three  children  the  man  took  two,  the  woman  one, 
viz.,  the  second  child.  If  the  woman  married  again 
after  her  divorce,  and  her  first  husband  claimed  her 
back,  she  was  obliged  to  follow  him,  even  if  she  had 
one  foot  in  her  new  husband's  bed.  But  if  two  had 
lived  together  for  seven  years,  they  were  considered 
man  and  wife,  even  without  the  preliminaries  of  a 
formal  marriage.  Chasteness  of  the  girls  before  mar- 
riage was  by  no  means  strictly  observed,  nor  was  it 
required.  The  regulations  regarding  this  subject  are 
of  an  extremely  frivolous  nature  and  in  contradiction 
with  civilized  morals.  When  a  woman  committed 
adultery,  her  husband  had  a  right  to  beat  her— this 
was  one  of  three  cases  when  he  could  do  so  without 
incurring  a  penalty— but  after  that  he  could  not  de- 
mand any   other  satisfaction,   for   "the   same  crime 


l60  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

shall  either  be  atoned  for  or  avenged,  but  not  both." 
The  reasons  that  entitled  a  woman  to  a  divorce  with- 
out curtailing  her  claims  to  a  fair  settlement  were  of 
a  very  diverse  nature:  bad  breath  of  the  man  was 
sufficient.  The  ransom  to  be  paid  to  the  chief  or  king 
for  the  right  of  the  first  night  (gobr  merch,  hence  the 
medieval  name  marcheta,  French  marquette)  plays  a 
conspicuous  part  in  the  code  of  laws.  The  women  had 
the  right  to  vote  in  the  public  meetings.  Add  to  this 
that  similar  conditions  are  vouched  for  in  Ireland; 
that  maiTiage  on  time  was  also  quite  the  custom  there, 
and  that  the  women  were  assured  of  liberal  and  well 
defined  privileges  in  case  of  divorce,  even  to  the  point 
of  remuneration  for  domestic  services;-  that  a  "first 
wife"  existed  by  the  side  of  others,  and  that  legal  and 
illegal  children  without  distinction  received  a  share  of 
their  deceased  parent's  property— and  we  have  a  pic- 
ture of  the  pairing  family  among  the  Celts.  The  mar- 
riage laws  of  the  American  Indians  seem  strict  in  com- 
parison to  the  Celtic,  but  this  is  not  surprising  when 
we  remember  that  the  Celts  were  still  living  in  group 
marriage  at  Cesar's  time. 

The  Irish  gens  (Sept;  the  tribe  was  called  clalnne, 
clan)  is  confirmed  and  described  not  alone  by  the  an- 
cient law  codes,  but  also  by  the  English  jurists  of  the 
17th  century  who  were  sent  across  for  the  purpose  of 
transforming  the  clan  lands  into  royal  dominions.  Up 
to  this  time,  the  soil  had  been  the  collective  property 
of  the  gens  or  the  clan,  except  where  the  chiefs  had 
already  claimed  it  as  their  private  dominion.  When  a 
gentile  died,  and  a  household  was  thus  dis- 
solved, the  gentile  chief  (called  caput  cogna^ 
tionis  by  the  English  jurists)  made  a  new 
assignment  of  the  whole  gentile  territory  to 
the  rest  of  the  household.  This  division  of  land 
probably  took  place  according  to  such  rules  as  were 
observed  in  Germany.     Until  about  fifty  years  ago, 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS  l6l 
( 
village  marks  were  quite  frequent,  and  some  of  these 
so-called  rundales  may  be  found  to  this  day.  The 
farmers  of  a  rundale,  individual  tenants  on  the  soil 
that  once  was  the  collective  property  of  the  gens,  but 
had  been  confiscated  by  the  English  conquerors,  each 
pay  the  rent  for  his  respective  parcel.  But  they  all 
combine  their  lands  and  parcel  it  off  according  to  situ- 
ation and  quality.  These  parcels,  called  "Gewanne" 
on  the  German  river  Mosel,  are  cultivated  collectively 
and  their  yield  is  divided  into  shares.  Marshland  and 
pastures  are  used  in  common.  Fifty  years  ago,  new 
divisions  were  still  made  occasionally,  sometimes  an- 
nually. The  field  map  of  such  a  rundale  villege  looks 
exactly  like  that  of  a  German  "Gehoferschaft"  (farm- 
ing commune)  on  the  Mosel  or  in  the  Hochwald. 
The  gens  also  survives  in  the  "factions."  The  Irish 
farmers  often  form  parties  that  seem  to  be  founded 
on  absolutely  contradictory  or  senseless  distinctions, 
quite  incomprehensible  to  Englishmen.  The  only  pur- 
pose of  these  factions  is  apparently  to  rally  for  the 
popular  sport  of  hammering  the  life  out  of  one  an- 
other. They  are  artificial  reincarnations,  modem  sub- 
btitutes  for  the  dispersed  gentes  that  demonstrate  the 
continuation  of  the  old  gentile  instinct  in  their  own 
peculiar  manner.  By  the  way.  in  some  localities  the 
gentiles  are  still  living  together  on  what  is  practically 
their  old  teiTitory.  During  the  thirties,  for  instance, 
the  great  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  old  county 
of  Monaghan  had  only  four  family  names,  i.  e.,  they 
were  descended  from  four  gentes  or  tribes  (clans). ♦ 


Author's  note  to  the  fourth  edition, 

•During  a  few  days  passed  in  Ireland,  I  once  more  became 
conscious  to  what  extent  the  rural  population  Is  still  living 
In  the  conceptions  of  the  gentile  period.  The  great  land- 
holder, whose  tenant  the  farmer  is,  still  enjoys  a  position 
similar  to  that  of  a  clan  chief,  who  has  to  supervise  the 
cultivation  of  the  soil  in  the  interest  of  all,  who  is  entitled 
to  a  tribute  from  the  farmer  in  the  form  of  rent,  but  who 
also  has  to  assist  the  farmer  in  cases  of  need.     Likewise 


l62  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

The  downfall  of  the  gentile  order  in  Scotland  dates 
from  the  suppression  of  the  revolt  in  1745.  What  link 
of  this  order  the  Scotch  clan  represented  remains  to  be 
Investigated;  that  it  is  a  link,  is  beyond  doubt.  Walter 
Scott's  novels  bring  this  Scotch  highland  clan  vividly 
before  our  eyes.  It  is,  as  Morgan  says,  "an  excellent 
type  of  the  gens  in  organization  and  in  spirit,  and  an 
extraordinary  illustration  of  the  power  of  the  gentile 
life  over  its  members.  .  .  .  We  find  in  their  feuds 
and  blood  revenge,  in  their  localization  by  gentes,  in 
their  use  of  lands  in  common,  in  the  fidelity  of  the 
clansman  to  his  chief  and  of  the  members  of  the  clan 
to  each  other,  the  usual  and  persistent  features  of  gen- 
tile society.  .  .  .  Descent  was  in  the  male  line,  the 
children  of  the  males  remaining  members  of  the  clan, 
while  the  children  of  its  female  members  belonged  to 
the  clans  of  their  respective  fathers."  The  fact  that 
matriarchal  law  was  formerly  in  force  in  Scotland  is 
proved  by  the  royal  family  of  the  Picts,  who  accord- 
ing to  Beda  observed  female  lineage.  Even  a  survival 
of  the  Punaluan  family  had  been  preserved  among  the 
Scots,  as  among  the  Welsh.  For  until  the  middle  ages, 
the  chief  of  the  clan  or  king,  the  last  representatives 
of  the  former  common  husbands,  had  the  right  to  claim 
the  first  night  with  every  bride,  unless  a  ransom  was 
given. 

It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  the  Germans  were 


everyone  in  comfortable  circumstances  is  considered  under 
obligation  to  help  his  poorer  neighbors  wheneTer  they  are 
in  need.  Such  assistance  is  not  charity,  it  is  simply  the 
prerogative  of  the  poor  gentile,  which  the  rich  gentile  or 
the  chief  of  the  clan  must  respect.  This  explains  why  the 
professors  of  political  economy  and  the  jurists  complain  of 
the  impossibility  of  imparting  the  idea  of  the  modern  private 
property  to  the  Irish  farmers.  Property  that  has  only  rights, 
but  no  duties,  is  absolutely  beyond  the  ken  of  the  Irishman. 
No  wonder  that  so  many  Irishmen  who  are  suddenly  cast 
into  one  of  the  modern  great  cities  «f  England  and  America, 
among  a  population  with  entirely  different  moral  and  legal 
standards,  despair  of  all  morals  and  justice,  lose  all  hold  and 
become  an  easy  prey  to  demoralization. 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS         163 

organized  in  gentes  up  to  the  time  of  the  great  migra- 
tions. The  territory  between  the  Danube,  the  Rhine, 
the  Vistula  and  the  northern  seas  was  evidently 
occupied  by  them  only  a  few  centuries  before  Christ. 
The  Cimbri  and  Teutons  were  then  still  in  full  migra- 
tion, and  the  Suebi  did  not  settle  down  until  Cesar's 
time.  Cesar  expressly  states  that  they  settled  down 
In  gentes  and  kins  (gentibus  cognatibusque),  and  in 
the  mouth  of  a  Roman  of  the  gens  Julia  this  term 
gentibus  has  a  definite  meaning,  that  no  amount  of 
disputation  can  obliterate.  This  holds  good  for  all 
Germans.  It  seems  that  even  the  provinces  talien  by 
them  from  the  Romans  were  settled  by  distribution 
to  gentes.  The  Alemanian  code  of  laws  affirms  that 
the  people  settled  in  gentes  (genealogiae)  on  the  con- 
quered land  south  of  the  Danube.  Genealogia  is  used 
in  exactly  the  same  sense  as  was  later  on  Mark— or 
Dorfgenossenschaft  (mark  or  village  community). 
Kovalevsky  recently  maintained  that  these  geneal- 
ogiae were  the  great  household  communities  among 
which  the  land  was  divided,  and  from  which  the 
village  communities  developed  later  on.  The  same 
may  be  true  of  the  fara,  by  which  term  the  Burgun- 
dians  and  Langobards— a  Gothic  and  a  Herminonian 
or  High  German  tribe— designated  nearly.  If  not  ex- 
actly, the  same  thing  as  the  Alemanian  genealogiae. 
Whether  this  is  really  the  gens  or  the  household  com- 
munity, must  be  settled  by  further  investigation. 

The  language  records  leave  us  in  doubt,  whether  all 
the  Germans  had  a  common  expression  for  gens  or  not, 
and  as  to  what  this  term  was.  Etymologically,  the 
Gothic,  kuni,  middle  High  German  kiinne,  corresponds 
to  the  Grecian  genos  and  the  Latin  gens,  and  is  used 
in  the  same  sense.  We  are  led  back  to  the  time  of 
matriarchy  by  the  terms  for  "woman"  which  are  de- 
rived from  the  same  root:  Greek  gyng,  Slav  zena, 
Gothic  qvino,  Norse  kona,  kuna. 


l64  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

Among  I/angobards  and  Burgundians,  I  repeat,  we 
find  the  term  fara  which  Grimm  derives  from  the 
hypothetical  root  fisan,  to  beget.  I  should  prefer  to 
trace  it  to  the  more  obvious  root  faran,  German 
fahren,  to  ride  or  to  wander,  in  order  to  designate  a 
certain  well  defined  section  of  the  wandering  corps, 
composed  quite  naturally  of  relatives.  As  a  result  of 
centuries  of  wanderings  from  West  to  East  and  back 
again,  this  term  was  gradually  applied  to  the  sex 
group  itself. 

There  is  furthermore  the  Gothic  sibja,  Anglosaxon 
Bib,  old  High  German  sippia,  sippa,  High  German 
sippe.  Old  Norse  has  only  the  plural  sif  jar,  the  rela- 
tives; the  singular  occurs  only  as  the  name  of  a  god- 
dess, Sif. 

Finally,  another  expression  occurs  in  the  Hildebrand 
Song,  where  Hildebrand  asks  Hadubrand  "who  is 
your  father  among  the  men  of  the  nation  ...  or 
what  is  your  kin?"  (eddo  huelllhhes  cnuosles  du  sis). 

If  there  was  a  common  German  term  for  gens,  it  was 
presumably  the  Gothic  kuni.  This  is  not  only  indi- 
cated by  its  identity  with  the  corresponding  term  in 
related  languages,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  the  word 
kuning,  German  Konig,  English  king,  is  derived  from 
It,  all  of  which  originally  signified  chief  of  gens  or 
tribe.  Sibja,  German  Sippe  (relationship),  does  not 
appear  worthy  of  consideration.  In  old  Norse,  at  least, 
sifjar  signifies  not  alone  kin  by  blood,  but  also  kin 
through  marriage;  hence  It  comprises  the  members  of 
at  least  two  gentes,  and  the  term  sif  cannot  have 
been  applied  to  the  gens  itself. 

In  the  order  of  battle,  the  Germans,  like  the  Mexi- 
cans and  Greeks,  arranged  the  horsemen  as  well  as 
the  wedge-like  columns  of  the  troops  on  foot  by  gentes. 
Tacitus'  indefinite  expression,  "by  families  and  kin- 
ships," is  explained  by  the  fact  that  at  his  time  the 
gens  had  long  ceased  to  be  a  living  body  in  Rome. 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS        l6S 

Another  passage  of  Tacitus  is  decisive.  There  he 
says:  "The  mother's  brother  regards  his  nephew  aa 
his  son;  some  even  hold  that  the  bond  of  blood  be- 
tween the  maternal  uncle  and  the  nephew  is  more 
sacred  and  close  than  that  between  father  and  son, 
so  that  when  persons  are  demanded  as  securities,  the 
sister's  son  is  considered  a  better  security  than  the 
natural  son  of  the  man  whom  they  desire  to  place 
under  bonds."  Here  we  have  a  living  proof  of  the 
matriarchal,  and  hence  natural,  gens,  and  it  is  der 
Ecribed  as  a  characteristic  mark  of  the  Germans.* 
If  a  member  of  such  a  gens  gave  his  own  son  as  a 
security  for  the  fulfillment  of  a  vow  and  this  son 
became  the  victim  of  his  father's  breach  of  faith, 
that  was  the  concern  of  the  father  alone.  But  when 
the  son  of  a  sister  was  sacrificed,  then  the  most 
sacred  gentile  law  was  violated.  The  next  relative 
who  was  bound  above  all  others  to  protect  the  boy 
or  young  man,  was  held  responsible  for  his  death; 
either  he  should  not  have  given  the  boy  in  bail  or  he 
should  have  kept  the  contract.  If  we  had  no  other 
trace  of  gentile  law  among  the  Germans,  this  one 
pasage  would  be  suflacient  proof  of  its  existence. 

But  there  is  another  passage  in  the  Old  Norse  song 
of  the  "Dawn  of  the  Gods"  and  the  "End  of  the 

Author's  note, 

*The  Greeks  know  this  special  sacredness  of  the  bond 
between  the  mother's  brother  and  his  nephew,  a  relic  of 
maternal  law  found  among  many  nations,  only  In  the  mythol- 
ogy of  heroic  times.  According  to  Diodorus  IV.,  34,  Melea- 
gros  kills  the  sons  of  Thestius,  the  brother  of  his  mother 
Althaia.  The  latter  regards  this  deed  as  such  a  heinous 
crime  that  she  curses  the  murderer,  her  own  son,  and  prays 
for  his  death.  "It  is  said  that  the  gods  fulfilled  her  wish 
and  ended  the  life  of  Meleagros."  According  to  the  same 
Diordorus,  IV.,  44,  the  Argonauts  under  Herakles  land  In 
Thracia  and  there  find  that  Phineus,  at  the  instigation  of  hia 
second  wife,  shamefully  maltreats  his  two  sons,  the  offspring 
of  his  first  deserted  wife,  the  Boread  Kleopatra.  But  among 
the  Argonauts  there  are  also  some  Boreads,  the  brothers  of 
Kleopatra,  the  uncles  of  the  maltreated  boys.  They  at  once 
champion  their  nephews,  set  them  free  and  kill  their  gnards. 


l66  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

World,"  the  Yoluspa,  ^'liich  is  still  stronger  evi- 
dence, because  it  is  800  years  younger.  In  this  "Vis- 
ion of  the  Seeress,"  in  which  Bang  and  Bugge  have 
now  demonstrated  the  existence  of  Christian  ele- 
ments, also,  the  description  of  the  time  of  general 
degeneration  and  corruption  inaugurating  the  great 
catastrophe  contains  this  passage: 

Broedhr  munu  berjask  ok  at  bonum  verdask 

Munu  systrungar  sif jum  spilla. 

"Brothers  will  wage  war  against  one  another  and 
become  each  other's  murderers,  and  sisters'  children 
will  break  the  bonds  of  blood."  Systrungr  means  the 
son  of  the  mother's  sister,  and  an  abnegation  of  the 
blood  kinship  from  that  side  surpasses  in  the  eyes  of 
the  poet  even  the  crime  of  fratricide.  There  is  a  de- 
liberate climax  in  that  systrungar,  emphasizing  the 
maternal  kinship.  If  the  term  syskina-born,  broth- 
er's and  sister's  children,  or  syskina-synir,  brother's 
and  sister's  sons,  had  been  used,  there  would  have 
been  a  weakening  of  the  effect,  instead  of  a  climax. 
That  shows  that  even  at  the  time  of  the  Vikings, 
Avhen  the  Voluspa  was  composed,  the  recollection  of 
maternal  law  was  not  yet  blotted  out. 

Among  the  Germans  with  whom  Tacitus  was  fa- 
miliar maternal  law  had  already  given  way  to  pa- 
ternal lineage.  The  children  were  the  next  heirs  of 
the  father;  in  the  absence  of  children,  the  brothers 
and  uncles  on  both  sides  were  next  in  line.  The  ad- 
mission of  the  mother's  brother  to  the  inheritance  is 
a  relic  of  maternal  law  and  proves  that  paternal 
law  had  only  recently  been  introduced  by  the  Ger- 
mans. Traces  of  maternal  law  were  preserved  until 
late  in  the  middle  ages.  It  seems  that  even  at  this 
late  date  people  still  felt  certain  misgivings  about 
the  reliability  of  fatherhood,  especially  among  serfs. 
For  when  a  feudal  lord  demanded  the  return  of  a 
fugitive  serf  from  a  city,  it  was  first  required,  for 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS        1^7 

^pstance  in  Augsburg,  Basel  and  Kaisersiautern,  that 
tbe  fact  of  his  serfdom  should  be  established  by  th€ 
oaths  of  six  of  his  next  blood  relations,  all  of  whom 
had  to  belong  to  his  mother's  kin.  (Maurer,  Stadte* 
verfassung,  I,  page  381.J 

Another  relic  of  declining  matriarchy  was  the  (from 
the  Roman  standpoint)  almost  inexplicable  respect  of 
the  Germans  for  the  female  sex.  Young  girls  of 
noble  family  were  considered  the  safest  bonds  to 
secure  the  keeping  of  contracts  with  Germans.  In 
battle,  nothing  stimulated  their  courage  so  much  as 
the  horrible  thought  that  their  wives  and  daughters 
might  be  captured  and  carried  into  slavery.  A 
woman  was  to  them  something  holy  and  prophetical, 
and  they  listened  to  her  advice  in  the  most  important 
matters.  Veleda,  the  Bructerian  priestess  on  the 
river  Lippe,  was  the  soul  of  the  insurrection  of  the 
Batavians,  in  which  Civilis  at  the  head  of  German 
and  Belgian  tribes  shook  the  foundations  of  Roman 
rule  in  Gaul.  The  women  held  undisputed  sway  in 
the  house.  If  we  may  believe  Tacitus,  they,  together 
with  the  old  men  and  children,  had  to  do  all  the 
work,  for  the  men  went  hunting,  drank  and  loafed. 
But  as  Tacitus  does  not  say  who  cultivated  the  fields, 
and  as  according  to  his  explicit  statement  the  slaves 
paid  only  tithes,  but  did  not  work  under  compulsion, 
it  seems  that  the  adult  men  would  have  had  to  do 
what  little  agricultural  work  was  required. 

The  form  of  marriage,  as  stated  above,  was  the 
pairing  family  in  gradual  transition  to  monogamy. 
It  was  not  yet  strict  monogamy,  for  polygamy  was 
permitted  for  the  wealthy.  Chasteness  of  the  girls 
was  in  general  carefully  maintained,  different  from 
the  custom  of  the  Celts.  Tacitus  speaks  with  special 
ardor  of  the  sacredness  of  the  matrimonial  bond 
among  the  Germans.  Adultery  of  the  woman  is 
alone  quoted  by  him  as  a  reason  for  a  divorce.    But 


l68  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

his  treatment  of  this  subject  leaves  many  a  flaw  and 
besides,  it  too  openly  holds  up  the  mirror  of  virtue 
to  the  dissipated  Romans.  So  much  is  certain: 
Granted  that  the  Germans  were  such  exceptional 
models  of  virtue  in  their  forests,  it  required  only  a 
short  contact  with  the  outer  world  to  bring  them 
down  to  the  level  of  the  other  average  Europeans.  In 
the  whirl  of  Roman  life  the  last  trace  of  pure  morals 
disappeared  even  faster  than  the  German  language. 
Just  read  Gregorius  of  Tours.  It  is  obvious  that  in 
the  primeval  forests  of  Germany  no  such  hyper- 
refined  voluptuousness  could  exist  as  in  Rome.  That 
implies  fully  enough  superiority  of  the  Germans  over 
the  Roman  world,  and  there  is  no  necessity  for 
ascribing  to  them  a  moderation  and  chastity  that 
have  never  been  the  qualities  of  any  nation  as  a 
whole. 

A  result  of  gentile  law  is  the  obligation  to  inherit 
the  enmities  as  well  as  the  friendships  of  one's 
father  and  relatives;  so  is  furthermore  the  displace- 
ment of  blood  revenge  by  the  Wergeld,  a  fine  to  be 
paid  in  atonement  of  manslaughter  and  injuries.  A 
generation  ago  this  Wergeld  was  considered  a  spe- 
cifically German  institution,  but  it  has  since  been 
found  that  hundreds  of  nations  introduced  this  miti- 
gation of  gentile  blood  revenge.  Like  the  obligatory 
hospitality,  it  is  found,  for  instance,  among  the 
American  Indians.  Tacitus'  description  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  hospitality  was  observed  (Germania, 
chapt.  21)  is  almost  identical  with  Morgan's. 

The  hot  and  ceaseless  controversy  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  Germans  had  already  made  a  definite 
repartition  of  the  cultivated  land  at  Tacitus'  time, 
and  how  the  passages  relating  to  this  question  should 
be  interpreted,  is  now  a  thing  of  the  past.  After  the 
following  facts  had  been  established:  that  the  cul- 
tivated land  of  nearly  all  nations  was  tilled  collec- 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS         169 

tively  by  the  gens  aud  later  on  by  communistic  fam- 
ily groups,  a  practice  which  Cesar  still  found  among 
the  Suebi;  that  as  a  result  of  this  practice  the  land 
was  re-apportioned  periodically;  and  that  this  peri- 
odical repartition  of  the  cultivated  land  was  pre- 
served in  Germany  down  to  our  days— after  such  evi- 
dence we  need  not  waste  any  more  breath  on  the 
subject.  A  transition  within  150  years  from  collec- 
tive cultivation,  such  as  Cesar  expressly  attributes 
to  the  Suebi,  to  individual  cultivation  with  annual 
repartition  of  the  soil,  such  as  Tacitus  found  among 
the  Germans,  is  surely  progress  enough  for  any  one. 
The  further  transition  from  this  stage  to  complete 
private  ownership  of  land  during  such  a  short  period 
and  without  any  external  intervention  would  involve 
an  absolute  impossibility.  Hence  I  can  only  read  in 
Tacitus  what  he  states  in  so  many  words:  They 
change  (or  re-divide)  the  cultivated  land  every  year, 
and  enough  land  is  left  for  common  use.  It  is  the 
stage  of  agriculture  and  appropriation  of  the  soil 
which  exactly  tallies  with  the  contemporaneous  gen- 
tile constitution  of  the  Germans. 

I  leave  the  preceding  paragraph  unchanged,  Just  as 
it  stood  in  former  editions.  Meantime  the  question 
has  assumed  another  aspect.  Since  Kovalevsky  has 
demonstrated  that  the  patriarchal  household  com- 
munity existed  nearly  everywhere,  perhaps  even 
everywhere,  as  the  connecting  link  between  the  ma- 
triarchal communistic  and  the  modern  isolated  fam- 
ily, the  question  is  no  longer  "Collective  property  or 
private  property?"  as  discussed  between  Maurer  and 
Waitz,  but  "What  was  the  form  of  that  collective 
property?"  Not  alone  is  there  no  doubt  whatever, 
that  the  Suebi  were  the  collective  owners  of  their 
land  at  Cesar's  time,  but  also  that  they  tilled  the  soil 
collectively.  The  questions,  whether  their  economic 
unit  was  the  gens,  or  the  household,  or  an  intermedi- 


170  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

ate  communistic  group,  or  whether  all  three  of  these 
groups  existed  at  the  same  time  as  a  result  of  dif- 
ferent local  conditions,  may  remain  undecided  for  a 
long  while  yet  Kovalevsky  maintains  that  the  con- 
ditions described  by  Tacitus  were  not  founded  on  the 
mark  or  village  community,  but  on  the  household 
community,  which  developed  much  later  into  the 
village  community  by  the  growth  of  the  population. 

Hence  the  settlements  of  the  Germans  on  the  ter- 
ritory they  occupied  at  the  time  of  the  Romans,  and 
on  territory  later  taken  by  them  from  the  Romans, 
would  not  have  consisted  of  villages,  but  of  large  co- 
operative families  comprising  several  generations, 
who  cultivated  a  suflBcient  piece  of  land  and  used  the 
surrounding  wild  land  in  common  with  their  neigh- 
bors. If  this  was  the  case,  then  the  passage  in  Taci- 
tus regarding  the  changing  of  the  cultivated  land 
would  indeed  have  an  agronomic  meaning,  viz.,  that 
the  co-operative  household  cultivated  a  different  piece 
of  land  every  year,  and  the  land  cultivated  during 
the  previous  year  was  left  untilled  or  entirely  aban- 
doned. The  scarcity  of  the  population  would  have 
left  enough  spare  wild  lands  to  make  all  dispute 
about  land  unnecessary.  Only  after  the  lapse  of 
centuries,  when  the  members  of  the  family  had  in- 
creased so  that  the  collective  cultivation  became  in- 
compatible with  the  prevailing  conditions  of  produc- 
tion, the  household  communities  were  dissolved.  The 
former  common  fields  and  meadows  were  then  di- 
vided in  the  well-known  manner  among  the  various 
individual  families  that  had  now  formed.  The  divis- 
ion of  farm  lands  was  first  periodical,  but  later  final, 
while  forest,  pasture  and  watercourses  remained 
common  property. 

It  seems  that  this  process  of  development  has  been 
fully  established  for  Russia  by  historical  investiga- 
tion.   As  for  Germany  and,  in  the  secoad  place,  for 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS        I?! 

Other  German  countries,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  this 
view  affords  in  many  instances  a  better  interpreta- 
tion of  historical  authorities  and  a  readier  solution  of 
diflQculties  than  the  idea  of  tracing  the  village  com- 
munity to  the  time  of  Tacitus.  The  oldest  docu- 
ments, e.  g.  of  the  Codex  Laureshamensis,  are  easier 
explained  by  the  help  of  the  household  than  of  the 
village  community.  On  the  other  hand,  new  ditfi- 
culties  now  arise  and  new  questions  pose  themselves. 
It  will  require  further  investigations  to  arrive  at 
definite  conclusions.  However,  I  cannot  deny  that 
the  probability  is  very  much  in  favor  of  the  inter- 
mediate stage  of  the  household  community.* 

While  the  Germans  of  Cesar's  time  had  either  just 
taken  up  settled  abodes,  or  were  still  looking  for 
them,  they  had  been  settled  for  a  full  century  at  the 
time  of  Tacitus.  As  a  result  there  is  a  manifest 
progress  in  the  production  of  necessities.  The  Ger- 
mans lived  in  block  houses;  their  clothing  was  still 
as  primitive  as  their  forests,  consisting  of  rough 
woolen  cloaks,  animal  skins  and  linen  underclothing 


Translator's  note, 

♦The  household  community  is  still  a  distinct  stage  of 
production  in  Georgia  (South  Russia).  The  northern  bound- 
ary of  Georgia  is  the  Caucasus.  The  Georgians,  a  people 
of  high  intelligence,  have  for  centuries  maintained  their 
Independence  against  Persians,  Arabs,  Turcs  and  Tartars. 
Dr.  Philipp  Gogitshayshvili  gives  the  following  interesting 
description  of  their  condition  in  an  article,  entitled  "Das 
Gewerbe  in  Georgien"  (Zeitschrift  fur  die  gesammte  Staats- 
wissenschaft,  Erganzungsheft  I.,  Tubingen,  1901).  "The 
Swanians  (a  district  of  Georgia  is  called  Swania)  have  all 
the  necessities  of  life.  They  weave  their  own  clothing,  make 
their  own  weapons,  powder  and  even  silver,  and  gold  orna- 
ments.    There  is  no  modern  trading They  are 

acquainted  with  exchange,  but  only  of  products  for  products. 
Money  does  not  circulate  and  there  are  neither  shops  nor 

markets There   is   not   a   single    beggar,    not   a 

single  man  who  asks  for  charity.  With  the  exception  of  iron, 
salt  and  chintz,  the  Swanians  produce  all  they  need  them- 
selves. They  prepare  their  linen  from  hemp,  their  clothing 
from  skins  of  wild  animals  and  wool,  their  footwear  from 
hides  and  leather.  They  make  feltcaps,  household  goods, 
weapons,  saddles,  bridles'and  agricultural  implements." 


1/2  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

for  the  women  and  the  ^svealthy.  They  lived  on  milk, 
meat,  wild  fruit  and,  as  Pliny  adds,  oatmeal  porridge 
which  is  the  Celtic  national  dish  in  Ireland  and  Scot- 
land to-day.  Their  wealth  consisted  in  cattle  of  an 
inferior  race.  The  kine  were  small,  of  unattractive 
appearance  and  without  horns;  the  horses,  little 
ponies,  were  not  fast  runners.  Money,  Roman  coin 
only,  was  rarely  used.  They  did  not  make  orna- 
ments of  gold  and  silver,  nor  did  they  value  these 
metals.  Iron  was  scarce  and,  at  least  among  the 
tribes  on  the  Rhine  and  the  Danube,  was  apparently 
only  imported,  not  mined  by  themselves.  The  Runen 
script  (imitations  of  Greek  and  Latin  letters)  was 
only  used  as  a  cipher  and  exclusively  for  religious 
sorcery.  Human  sacrifices  were  still  in  vogue.  In 
short,  they  were  a  nation  just  emerged  out  of  the 
middle  stage  of  barbarism  into  the  upper  stage.  But 
while  the  tribes  whose  immediate  contact  with  the 
Romans  facilitated  the  import  of  Roman  products, 
were  thereby  prevented  from  acquiring  a  metal  and 
textile  industry  of  their  own,  there  is  not  the  least 
doubt  that  the  tribes  of  the  Northeast,  on  the  Baltic, 
developed  these  industries.  The  pieces  of  armor 
found  in  the  bogs  of  Sleswick— a  long  iron  sword,  a 
coat  of  mail,  a  silver  helmet,  etc.,  together  with 
Roman  coins  from  the  close  of  the  second  century—, 
and  the  German  metal  ware  spread  by  the  migrations 
represent  a  peculiar  type  of  a  superior  finish,  even 
such  as  were  modeled  after  Roman  originals.  With 
the  exception  of  England,  the  emigration  into  the 
civilized  Roman  empire  everywhere  put  an  end  to 
this  home  industry.  How  simultaneously  this  indust- 
try  arose  and  developed,  is  shown  e.  g.  by  the 
bronze  spangles.  The  specimens  found  in  Burgundy, 
in  Roumania  and  on  the  Sea  of  Asow,  might  have 
been   manufactured   in  the   same   shop   with   those 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS        173 

found  in  England  or  Sweden  and  are  of  undoubted 
German  origin. 

The  German  constitution  was  also  in  keeping  with 
the  upper  stage  of  barbarism.  According  to  Tacitus, 
the  council  of  chiefs  (principes)  universally  decided 
matters  of  minor  importance  and  prepared  important 
matters  for  the  decision  of  the  public  meetings.  So 
far  as  we  know  anything  of  the  public  meeting  in 
the  lower  stage  of  barbarism,  viz.,  among  the  Amer- 
ican Indians,  it  was  only  held  by  gentes,  not  by 
tribes  or  leagues  of  tribes.  The  chiefs  of  peace  (prin- 
cipes) were  still  sharply  distinguished  from  the  cjiiefs 
of  war  (duces),  just  as  among  the  Iroquois.  The 
peace  chiefs  were  already  living  in  part  on  honorary 
donations  of  the  gentiles,  such  as  cattle,  grain,  etc. 
They  were  generally  elected  from  the  same  family, 
analogous  to  America.  The  transition  to  paternal 
law  favored,  as  in  Greece  and  Rome,  the  gradual 
transformation  of  office  by  election  into  hereditary 
office.  A  "noble"  family  was  thus  gradually  raised 
in  each  gens.  Most  of  this  hereditary  nobility  came 
to  grief  during  the  migrations  or  shortly  after.  The 
military  leaders  were  elected  solely  on  their  merits. 
They  had  little  power  and  were  obliged  to  rely  on 
the  force  of  their  example.  The  actual  disciplinary 
power  in  the  army  was  held  by  the  priests,  as  Taci- 
tus implicitly  states.  The  public  meeting  was  the 
real  executive.  The  king  or  chief  of  the  tribe  pre- 
sided. The  people  decided.  A  murmur  signified 
"No,"  acclamation  and  clanging  of  weapons  meant 
"Yes."  The  public  meeting  was  at  the  same  time  a 
court  of  justice.  Complaints  were  here  brought  forth 
and  decided,  and  death  sentences  pronounced.  Only 
cowardice,  treason  and  unnatural  lust  were  capital 
crimes.  The  gentes  and  other  subdivisions  decided 
in  a  body  under  the  chairmanship  of  the  chief,  who 
In  all  original  German  courts  was  only  the  manager 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE   FAMILY  174 

of  the  transactions  and  questioner.  Among  Ger- 
mans, the  sentence  has  ever  and  everywhere  been 
pronounced  by  the  community. 

Leagues  of  tribes  came  into  existence  since  Cesar's 
time.  Some  of  them  already  had  kings.  The  first 
chief  of  war  began  to  covet  the  usurper's  place,  as 
among  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  sometimes  succeeded 
in  obtaining  it.  Such  successful  usurpers  were  by 
no  means  absolute  rulers.  But  still  they  began  to 
break  through  the  bonds  of  the  gens.  While  freed 
slaves  generally  occupied  an  inferior  position,  be- 
cause they  could  not  be  members  of  any  gens,  they 
often  gained  rank,  wealth  and  honors  as  favorites  of 
the  new  kings.  The  same  thing  took  place  after  the 
conquest  of  the  Roman  empire  by  those  military 
leaders  who  had  now  become  kings  of  great  coun- 
tries. Among  the  Frankons,  slaves  and  freed  slaves 
of  the  king  played  a  leading  role  first  at  the  court, 
then  in  the  state.  A  large  part  of  the  new  nobility 
were  descended  from  them. 

There  was  one  institution  that  especially  favored 
the  rise  of  royalty:  the  military  following.  We  have 
already  seen,  how  among  the  American  redskins  pri- 
vate war  groups  were  formed  independently  of  the 
gens.  Among  the  Germans,  these  private  groups  had 
developed  into  standing  bodies.  The  military  leader 
who  had  acquired  fame,  gathered  around  his  person 
a  host  of  booty  loving  young  warriors.  They  were 
pledged  to  personal  faithfulness  by  their  leader  who 
In  return  pledged  himself  to  them.  He  fed  them, 
gave  them  presents  and  organized  them  on  hierarchic 
principles:  a  body  guard  and  a  troop  for  immediate 
emergencies  and  short  expeditions,  a  trained  corps 
of  officers  for  larger  enterprises.  These  followings 
must  have  been  rather  insignificant,  in  fact  we  find 
them  so  later  under  Odoaker  in  Italy,  still  they  poi^ 
tended  the  decay  of  the  old  gentile  liberty,  and  the 


THE  GENS  AMONG  CELTS  AND  GERMANS        175 

events  during  and  after  the  migrations  proved  that 
military  retainers  were  heralds  of  evil.  For  in  the 
first  place,  they  fostered  the  growth  of  royalty.  In 
the  second  place,  Tacitus  affirms  that  they  could  only 
be  held  together  by  continual  warfare  and  plunder- 
ing expeditions.  Robbery  became  their  life  purpose. 
If  the  leader  found  nothing  to  do  in  his  neighbor- 
hood, he  marched  his  troops  to  other  countries,  where 
a  prospect  of  war  and  booty  allured  him.  The  Ger- 
man auxiliaries,  many  of  whom  fought  under  the 
Roman  standard  even  against  Germans,  had  been 
largely  recruited  among  such  followings.  They  rep- 
resent the  first  germs  of  the  "Landsknecht"  profes- 
sion, the  shame  and  curse  of  the  Germans.  After 
the  conquest  of  the  Roman  empire,  these  retainers 
of  kings  together  with  the  unfree  Roman  courtiers 
formed  the  other  half  of  the  nobility  of  later  days. 

In  general,  then,  the  German  tribes  combined  into 
nations  had  the  same  constitution  that  had  developed 
among  the  Greeks  of  the  heroic  era  and  the  Romans 
at  the  time  of  the  so-called  kings:  public  meetings, 
councils  of  gentile  chiefs  and  military  leaders  who 
coveted  actual  royal  power.  It  was  the  highest  con- 
stitution which  the  gentile  order  could  produce;  it 
was  the  standard  constitution  of  the  higher  stage  of 
barbarism.  If  society  passed  the  limits  for  which 
this  constitution  sufficed,  then  the  end  of  the  gentile 
order  had  come.  It  collapsed  and  the  state  took  Its 
place. 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

THE  RISE  OF  THE  STATE  AMONG  GERMANS. 

According  to  Tacitus  the  German  nation  was  very 
strong  in  numbers.  An  approximate  idea  of  the 
strength  of  individual  German  nations  is  given  by 
Caesar.  He  states  that  the  number  of  Usipetans  and 
Tencterans  who  crossed  over  to  the  left  bank  of  the 
Rhine  amounted  to  180,000,  including  women  and 
children.  About  100,000*  members  to  a  single  nation 
is  considerably  more  than  e.  g.  the  Iroquois  num- 
bered in  their  prime,  when  20,000  of  them  became 
the  terror  of  the  whole  country,  from  the  Great 
Lakes  to  the  Ohio  and  Potomac.  If  we  attempt  to 
place  the  better  known  nations  of  the  Rhine  country 
by  the  help  of  historical  reports,  we  find  that  a  single 
nation  occupies  on  the  map  the  average  area  of  a 
Prussian  government  district,  about  10,000  square 
kilometers*  or  182  German  geographical  square 
miles.**  The  Germaoia  Magna  of  the  Romans, 
reaching  to  the  Vistula,  comprised  about  500,000 
square  kilometers.     Counting  an  average  of  100,000 


Author's  Dcte. 

♦The  number  assumed  here  is  confirmed  by  a  passage  of 
Diodorus  on  the  Celts  of  Gaul:  "Many  nations  of  unequal 
strength  are  living  in  Gaui.  The  strongest  of  them  numbers 
about  200vOOO.  the  weakest  50,000."  (Diodorus  Siculus,  V., 
25.)  That  gives  an  average  of  125,000.  The  individual  na- 
tions of  Gaul,  being  more  highly  developed,  should  be  gauged 
more  numerous  than  those  of  Germany. 
Translator's  note. 

♦3861  square  statute  miles. 

**A  German  geographical  mile  contains  7,420.44  meters,  or 
7,42044  kilometers;  hence  a  German  geographical  square  mile 
contains  55.0629  square  kilometers,  equal  to  lil.2595  square 
statute  miles. 


RISE   OF   THE   STATE   AMONG   GERMANS       1 77 

for  any  single  nation,  the  total  population  of  Ger- 
mania  Magna  would  have  amounted  to  Ave  millions. 
This  is  a  rather  high  figure  for  a  barbarian  group  ot 
nations,  although  10  inhabitants  to  the  square  liilo- 
meter  or  550  to  the  geographical  square  mile  is  very 
little  when  compared  to  present  conditions.  But  thi.s 
does  not  include  the  whole  number  of  Germans  then 
living.  We  know  that  German  nations  of  the  Gothic 
race,  Bastamians,  Peukinians  and  others,  lived  all 
along  the  Carpathian  mountains  away  down  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Danube.  They  were  so  numerous  that 
Pliny  designated  them  as  the  fifth  main  division  of 
the  Germans.  As  much  as  ISO  years  B.  C.  they  were 
mercenaries  of  the  Macedonian  King  Perseus,  and 
during  the  first  years  of  Augustus  they  were  still 
pushing  their  way  as  far  as  the  vicinity  of  Adriano- 
ple.  Assuming  them  to  have  been  one  million  strong 
we  find  that  at  least  six  millions  was  the  probable 
population  of  Germany  at  the  beginning  of  the  Chris- 
tian era. 

After  the  final  settlement  in  Germany,  the  popula- 
tion must  have  grown  with  increasing  rapidity.  The 
industrial  progress  mentioned  above  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  prove  it.  The  objects  found  in  the  bogs  of 
Sleswick,  to  judge  by  the  Roman  coins  found  with 
them,  are  from  the  third  century.  Hence  at  that 
time  the  metal  and  textile  industry  was  already  well 
developed  on  the  Baltic,  a  lively  traflic  with  the  Ro- 
man empire  was  carried  on,  and  the  wealthier  class 
enjoyed  a  certain  luxury— all  of  which  indicates  that 
the  population  had  increased.  But  at  the  same  time 
the  general  war  of  aggression  against  the  Romans 
commenced  along  the  whole  line  of  the  Rhine,  of  the 
Roman  wall  and  of  the  Danube,  a  line  stretching 
from  the  North  Sea  to  the  Black  Sea,  This  is  another 
proof  of  the  ever  growing  outward  pressure  of  the 
population.     During  the  struggle  which  lasted  three 


1/8  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

centuries,  the  whole  main  body  of  the  Gothic  nations, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Scandinavian  Goths  and 
the  Burgundians,  marched  to  the  Southeast  and 
formed  the  left  wing  of  the  long  line  of  attack.  The 
High  Germans  (Herminonians)  on  the  Upper  Dan- 
ube fought  in  the  center,  and  the  Iskaevonians  on  the 
Rhine,  now  called  Franks,  advanced  on  the  right 
wing.  The  conquest  of  Brittany  fell  to  the  lot  of  the 
Ingaevonians.*  At  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  the 
exhausted,  bloodless,  and  helpless  Roman  empire  lay 
open  to  the  Germans. 

In  former  chapters  we  stood  at  the  cradle  of  an- 
tique Greek  and  Roman  civilization.  Now  we  are 
standing  at  its  grave.  The  equalizing  plane  of  Ro- 
man world  power  had  been  gliding  for  centuries  over 
all  the  Mediterranean  countries.  Where  the  Greek 
language  did  not  offer  any  resistance,  all  national 
idioms  had  been  crushed  by  a  corrupted  Latin.  There 
were  no  longer  any  distinctions  of  nationality,  no 
more  Gauls,  Iberians,  Ligurians,  Noricans;  they  had 
all  become  Romans.  Roman  administration  and 
Roman  law  had  everywhere  dissolved  the  old  gentile 
bodies  and  thus  crushed  the  last  remnant  of  local  and 
national  independence.  The  new  type  of  Romans 
offered  no  compensation  for  this  loss,  for  it  did  not 
express  any  nationality,  but  only  the  lack  of  a  na- 
tionality. The  elements  for  the  formation  of  new 
nations  were  present  everywhere.  The  Latin  dialects 
of  the  different  provinces  differentiated  more  and 
more.  But  the  natural  boundaries  that  had  once 
made  Italy,  Gaul,  Spain,  Africa  independent  terri- 
tories, were  still  present  and  made  themselves  felt. 
Yet  there  was  no  strength  anywhere  for  combining 


Translator's  note. 

*The  Ingaevonians  comprised  the  Frieslans,  the  Saxons,  the 
Jutes  and  the  Angles,  living  on  the  coast  of  the  North  Sea 
from  the  Zuider  Zee  to  Denmark. 


RISE  OF  THE   STATE  AMONG  GERMANS         179 

these  elements  into  new  nations.  Nowhere  was  there 
the  least  trace  of  any  capacity  for  development,  nor 
any  power  of  resistance,  much  less  any  creative 
power.  The  immense  human  throng  of  that  enor- 
mous territory  was  held  together  by  one  bond  alone: 
the  Roman  state.  But  this  state  had  in  time  become 
the  worst  enemy  and  oppressor  of  its  subjects.  The 
provinces  had  ruined  Rome.  It  had  become  a  pro- 
vincial town  like  all  others,  privileged,  but  no  longer 
ruling,  no  longer  the  center  of  the  world  empire,  no 
longer  even  the  seat  of  the  emperors  and  subregents 
who  lived  in  Constantinople,  Treves  and  Milan.  The 
Roman  state  had  become  an  immense  complicated 
machine,  designed  exclusively  for  the  exploitation  of 
its  subjects.  Taxes,  state  imposts  and  tithes  of  all 
sorts  drove  the  mass  of  the  people  deeper  and  deeper 
into  poverty.  By  the  blackmailing  practices  of  the 
regents,  tax  collectors  and  soldiers,  the  pressure  was 
increased  to  such  a  point  that  it  became  insupport- 
able- This  w^as  the  outcome  of  Rome's  world  power. 
The  right  of  the  state  to  existence  was  founded  on 
the  preservation  of  order  in  the  interior  and 
the  protection  against  the  barbarians  outside.  But 
thi?  order  was  worse  than  the  most  disgusting  dis- 
ort^cr,  and  the  barbarians  against  whom  the  state 
pretended  to  protect  its  citizens,  were  hailed  by  them 
as  saviors. 

The  condition  of  society  was  no  less  desperate. 
During  the  last  years  of  the  republic,  the  Roman 
rulers  had  already  contrived  the  pitiless  exploitation 
of  the  conquered  provinces.  The  emperors  had  not 
abolished,  but  organized  this  exploitation.  The  more 
the  empire  fell  to  pieces,  the  higher  rose  the  taxes 
and  tithes,  and  the  more  shamelessly  did  the  officials 
rob  and  blackmail.  Commerce  and  industry  had 
never  been  a  strong  point  of  the  domineering  Ro- 
mans.   Only  in  usury  they  had  excelled  all  other  na- 


l8o  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

tions  before  and  after  them.  What  commerce  had 
managed  to  exist,  had  been  ruined  by  official  ex- 
tortion. Only  in  the  East,  in  the  Grecian  part  of  the 
empire,  some  commerce  still  vegetated,  but  this  is 
outside  of  the  scope  of  our  study.  Universal  reduc*- 
tion  to  poverty,  decrease  of  traffic,  of  handicrafts,  of 
art,  of  population,  decay  of  the  towns,  return  of  ag- 
riculture to  a  lower  stage — that  had  been  the  final 
result  of  Roman  world  supremacy. 

But  now  agriculture,  the  most  prominent  branch 
of  production  in  the  whole  Old  World,  was  again 
supreme,  and  more  than  ever.  In  Italy,  the  immense 
estates  (latifundiae)  that  comprised  nearly  the  whole 
country  since  the  end  of  the  republic,  had  been 
utilized  in  two  ways:  either  as  pastures  on  which 
the  population  had  been  replaced  by  sheep  and  oxen, 
the  care  of  which  required  only  a  few  slaves;  or  as 
country  seats,  on  which  masses  of  slaves  carried  on 
horticulture  on  a  large  scale,  partly  for  the  luxury 
of  the  owner,  partly  for  sale  on  the  markets  of  the 
towns.  The  great  pastures  had  been  preserved  and 
even  extended  in  certain  parts.  But  the  country 
seats  and  their  horticulture  had  gone  to  ruin  through 
the  impoverishment  of  their  owners  and  the  decay 
of  the  towns.  Latifundian  economy  based  on  slave 
labor  was  no  longer  profitable;  but  in  its  time  it 
had  been  the  only  possible  form  of  agriculture  on  a 
large  scale.  Now,  however,  small  production  had 
again  become  the  only  lucrative  form.  One  country 
seat  after  the  other  was  parceled  and  leased  in  small 
lots  to  hereditary  tenants  who  paid  a  fixed  rent,  or  to 
partiarii,  more  administrators  than  tenants  who  re- 
ceived one-sixth  or  even  only  one-ninth  of  a  year's 
product  in  remuneration  for  their  work.  But  these 
little  lots  were  principally  disposed  of  to  colonists 
who  paid  a  fixed  sum  annually  and  could  be  trans- 
ferred by  sale  together  with  their  lots.    Although  no 


RISE  OF  THE   STATE  AMONG  GERMANS         l8l 

slaves,  still  these  colonists  were  not  free;  they  could 
not  marry  free  citizens,  and  marriages  with  mem- 
bers of  their  own  class  were  not  regarded  as  valid, 
but  as  mere  concubinages  like  those  of  the  slaves. 
The  colonists  were  the  prototypes  of  the  medieval 
serfs. 

The  ancient  slavery  had  lost  its  vitality.  Neither 
in  the  country  in  large  scale  agriculture,  nor  in  the 
manufactories  of  the  towns  did  it  yield  any  more 
returns— the  marliet  for  its  products  had  disappeared. 
And  small  scale  production  and  artisanship,  to  w^hich 
the  gigantic  production  of  the  flourishing  time  of  the 
empire  «was  now  reduced,  did  not  leave  any  room  for 
numerous  slaves.  Only  house  and  luxury  slaves  of 
the  rich  were  still  retained  by  society.  But  this  de- 
clining slavery  was  as  yet  sufficiently  strong  to  brand 
productive  labor  as  slave  work,  as  below  the  dignity 
of  free  Romans;  and  everybody  was  now  a  free 
Roman.  An  increasing  number  of  superfluous  slaves 
who  had  become  a  drug  on  their  owners  were  dis- 
missed, while  on  the  other  hand  the  number  of  colo- 
nists and  of  beggared  free  men  (similar  to  the  poor 
whites  in  the  slave  states  of  America)  grew  continu- 
ously. Christianity  is  perfectly  innocent  of  this  grad- 
ual decline  of  ancient  slavery.  For  it  had  taken  part 
in  the  slavery  of  the  Roman  empire  for  centuries.  It 
never  prevented  the  slave  trade  of  Christians  later 
on,  neither  of  the  Germans  in  the  North,  nor  of  the 
Venetians  on  the  Mediterranean,  nor  the  negro  traffic 
of  later  years.*  Slavery  died,  because  it  did  not  pay 
any  longer.  But  it  left  behind  its  poisonous  sting  by 
branding  as  ignoble  the  productive  labor  of  free  men. 


Author's  note. 

*According  to  Bishop  Liutprand  of  Cremona,  the  main 
industry  of  Verdun  in  the  tenth  century,  in  the  so-caUed 
Holy  German  Empire,  was  the  manufacture  of  eunuchs,  who 
were  exported  with  great  profit  to  Spain  for  the  harems 
of  the  Moors. 


l82  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

This  brought  the  Roman  world  into  a  closed  alley 
from  which  it  could  not  escape.  Slave  labor  was 
ecoucmically  impossible  and  the  labor  of  free  men 
was  under  a  moral  ban.  The  one  could  exist  no 
longer,  the  other  could  not  yet  be  the  fundamental 
form  of  social  production.  There  was  no  other  help 
but  a  complete  revolution. 

The  provinces  were  not  any  better  off.  The  most 
complete  reports  on  this  subject  are  from  Gaul.  By 
the  side  of  the  colonists,  free  farmers  still  existed 
there.  In  order  to  protect  themselves  against  the 
brutal  blackmail  of  the  officials,  judges  and  usurers, 
they  frequently  placed  themselves  under  the  pro- 
tectorate of  a  man  of  influence  and  power.  Not  only 
single  individuals  did  so,  but  whole  communities,  so 
that  the  emperors  of  the  fourth  century  often  issued 
decrees  prohibiting  this  practice.  But  what  good  did 
protection  do  to  the  clients?  The  patron  imposed  the 
condition  that  they  should  transfer  the  title  of  their 
lots  to  him,  and  in  return  he  assured  them  of  the 
free  enjoyment  of  their  land  for  life— a  trick  which 
the  holy  church  remembered  and  freely  imitated  dur- 
ing the  ninth  and  tenth  century,  for  the  greater  glory 
of  God.  In  the  fifth  century,  however,  about  the 
year  475,  Bishop  Salvianus  of  Marseilles  still  vehe- 
mently denounced  such  robbery  and  relates  that  the 
methods  of  the  Roman  officials  and  great  landlords 
became  so  oppressive  that  many  "Romans"  fled  to 
the  districts  occupied  by  the  barbarians  and  feared 
nothing  so  much  as  a  return  under  Roman  rule.  That 
poor  parents  frequently  sold  their  children  into  slav- 
ery, is  proved  by  a  law  forbidding  this  practice. 

In  return  for  liberating  the  Romans  from  their  own 
state,  the  barbarians  appropriated  two-thirds  of  the 
entire  land  and  divided  it  among  themselves.  The 
distribution  was  made  by  gentile  rules.  As  the 
number  of  the  conquerors  was  relatively  small,  large 


RISE  OF  THE   STATE  AMONG  GERMANS         183 

tracts  remained  undivided  in  the  possession  of  the 
nation,  the  tribe  or  the  gens.  Every  gens  distributed 
the  land  for  cultivation  and  pastures  to  the  indi- 
vidual households  by  drawing  lots.  We  do  not  know 
whether  repeated  divisions  took  place  at  that  time. 
At  any  rate,  this  practice  was  soon  discarded  in  the 
Roman  provinces,  and  the  individual  lot  became  sala- 
ble private  property,  a  so-called  freehold  (allodium). 
Forests  and  pastures  remained  undivided  for  collec- 
tive use,  Th?s  use  and  the  mode  of  cultivating  the 
divided  land  was  regulated  tjy  tradition  and  the  will 
of  the  community.  The  longer  the  gens  lived  in  its 
village,  and  the  better  Germans  and  Romans  became 
amalgamated  in  the  course  of  time,  the  more  did  the 
character  of  kinship  lose  ground  before  territorial 
bounds.  The  gens  disappeared  in  the  mark  com- 
mune, the  members  of  which,  however,  still  exhibited 
traces  of  kinship.  In  the  countries  where  mark  com- 
munes were  still  preserved— in  the  North  of  France, 
in  England,  Germany  and  Scandinavia— the  gentile 
constitution  gradually  merged  into  a  local  constitu- 
tion and  thus  acquired  the  capacity  of  being  fitted 
into  a  state.  Nevertheless  this  local  constitution  re- 
tained some  of  the  primeval  democratic  character 
which  distinguishes  the  whole  gentile  order,  and  thus 
preserved  a  piece  of  gentilism  even  in  its  enforced 
degeneration  of  later  times.  This  left  a  weapon  in 
the  hands  of  the  oppressed,  ready  to  be  wielded  by 
them  even  in  the  present  time. 

The  rapid  loss  of  the  bonds  of  blood  in  the  gens 
as  a  result  of  conquest  caused  the  degeneration  of 
the  tribal  and  national  organs  of  gentilism.  We 
know  that  the  rule  over  subjugated  people  does  not 
agree  with  the  gentile  constitution.  Here  we  have 
an  opportunity  to  observe  this  on  a  large  scale.  The 
German  nations,  masters  of  the  Roman  provinces, 
had   to   organize   their   conquests.     But   they   could 


l84  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

neither  adopt  the  Romans  as  a  body  into  their 
gentes,  nor  rule  them  by  the  help  of  gentile  organs. 
A  substitute  for  them  had  to  be  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  Roman  administrative  bodies  that  were  largely 
retained  in  local  affairs,  and  this  substitute  could 
only  be  another  state.  Hence  the  organs  of  the  gen- 
tile constitution  had  to  become  organs  of  the  state, 
and  under  the  pressure  of  the  moment  this  took  place 
very  rapidly.  Now  the  first  representative  of  the  con- 
quering nation  was  the  military  leader.  The  internal 
and  external  security  of  the  conquered  territory  de- 
manded that  his  power  should  be  strengthened.  The 
moment  had  arrived  for  the  transition  from  war 
leadership  to  monarchy.  And  the  change  took  place. 
Take  e.  g.  the  realm  of  the  Franks.  The  victorious 
Salians  had  not  only  come  into  possession  of  the  ex- 
tensive Roman  state  dominions,  but  also  of  all  the 
large  tracts  that  had  not  been  assigned  to  the  more 
or  less  small  mark  communities,  especially  of  all 
large  forest  tracts.  The  first  thing  which  the  king 
of  the  Franks,  now  a  real  monarch,  did  was  to 
change  this  national  property  into  royal  property,  to 
steal  it  from  the  people  and  to  donate  or  give  it  in 
lien  to  his  retainers.  This  retinue,  originally  com- 
posed of  his  personal  war  followers  and  of  ihe  sub- 
eommanders  of  the  army,  was  increased  by  Komans, 
i.  e.,  romanized  Gauls  who  quickly  became  invaluable 
to  the  king  through  their  knowledge  of  writing,  their 
education  and  their  familiarity  with  the  language 
and  laws  of  the  country,  and  with  the  language  ol 
Latin  literature.  But  slaves,  serfs  and  freed  slaves 
also  became  his  courtiers.  From  among  all  these  he 
chose  his  favorites.  At  first  they  received  donations 
of  public  land,  and  later  on  these  benefits  were  gen 
erally  conferred  for  the  lifetime  of  the  king.  The 
foundation  of  a  new  nobility  was  thus  laid  at  the 
expense  of  the  people. 


RISE  OF  THE   STATE  AMONG  GERMANS         185 

But  this  was  not  all.  The  wide  expanse  of  the 
empire  could  not  be  governed  by  means  of  the  old 
gentile  constitution.  The  council  of  chiefs,  if  it  had 
not  become  obsolete  long  ago,  could  not  have  held 
any  more  meetings.  It  was  soon  displaced  by  the 
standing  retinue  of  the  king.  A  pretense  at  the  old 
public  meeting  was  still  kept  up,  but  it  also  was 
more  and  more  limited  to  the  meeting  of  the  sub- 
commanders  of  the  army  and  the  rising  nobles. 

Just  as  formerly,  the  Roman  farmers  during  the 
last  period  of  the  republic,  so  now  the  free  land-own- 
ing peasants,  the  mass  of  the  Frank  people,  were  ex- 
hausted and  reduced  to  penury  by  continual  civil 
feuds  and  wars  of  conquest.  They  who  once  had 
formed  the  whole  army  and,  after  the  conquest  of 
France,  its  picked  body,  were  so  impoverished  at  the 
end  of  the  ninth  century  that  hardly  more  than  every 
fifth  man  could  go  to  war.  The  former  army  of  free 
peasants,  convoked  directly  by  the  king,  was  re- 
placed by  an  army  composed  of  dependents  of  the 
new  nobles.  Among  these  servants  were  also  vil- 
leins, the  descendants  of  the  peasants  who  had 
acknowledged  no  master  but  the  king  and  a  little 
earlier  not  even  a  king.  Under  Charlemagne's  suc- 
cessors the  ruin  of  the  Frank  peasantry  was  aggra- 
vated by  internal  wars,  weakness  of  the  royal  power 
and  corresponding  overbearance  of  the  nobles.  The 
latter  had  received  another  addition  to  their  ranks 
through  the  installation  by  Charlemagne  of  "Gau"  * 
(district)  counts  who  strove  to  make  their  offices 
hereditary.  The  invasions  of  the  Normans  com- 
pleted the  wreck  of  the  peasantry.  Fifty  years  after 
the  death  of  Charlemagne,  France  lay  as  resistless  at 
the  feet  of  the  Normans,  as  four  hundred  years  pre- 


Translator's  note. 

♦The    "Gau"    is    a    Jarger    territory    than    tne    "Mark.' 
Caesar  and  Tacitus  called  it  pagus. 


l86  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

vious  the  Roman  empire  bad  lain  at  the  feet  of  the 
Franks. 

Not  only  was  the  external  impotence  almost  the 
same,  but  also  the  internal  order  or  rather  disorder 
of  society.  The  free  Frank  peasants  found  them- 
selves in  a  similar  position  as  their  predecessors,  the 
Roman  colonists.  Ruined  by  wars  and  robberies, 
they  had  been  forced  to  seek  the  protection  of  the 
nobles  or  the  church,  because  the  royal  power  was 
too  weak  to  shield  them.  But  they  had  to  pay 
dearly  for  this  protection.  Like  the  Gallic  farmers, 
they  had  to  transfer  the  titles  of  their  land  to  their 
patrons,  and  received  it  back  from  them  as  tenants 
in  different  and  varying  forms,  but  always  only  in 
consideration  of  services  and  tithes.  Once  driven 
into  this  form  of  dependence,  they  gradually  lost 
their  individual  liberty.  After  a  few  generations 
most  of  them  became  serfs.  How  rapidly  the  free 
peasants  sank  from  their  level  is  shown  by  the  land 
records  of  the  abbey  Saint  Germain  des  Pres,  then 
near,  now  in,  Paris.  On  the  vast  holdings  of  this 
abbey  in  the  surrounding  country  2788  households, 
nearly  all  of  them  Franks  with  German  names,  were 
living  at  Charlemagne's  time;  2080  of  them  were 
colonists,  35  lites,*  220  slaves  and  only  8  freeholders. 
The  practice  of  the  patrons  to  demand  the  transfer 
of  the  land  titles  to  themselves  and  give  the  former 
owners  the  use  of  the  land  for  life,  denounced  as  un- 
godly by  Salvianus,  was  now  universally  practiced 
by  the  Church  in  its  dealings  with  the  peasants.  The 
compulsory  labor  that  now  came  more  and  more 
into  vogue,  had  been  moulded  as  much  after  the 
Roman  angariae,  compulsory  service  for  the  state,  as 
after  the  services  of  the  German  mark  men  in  bridge 
and  road  building  and  other  work  for  common  pur- 


Translator's  note. 
♦The  name  given  In  ancient  law  to  dependent  farmers. 


RISE  OF  THE  STATE  AMONG  GERMANS        187 

poses.  By  all  appearances,  then,  the  mass  of  the 
population  had  arrived  at  the  same  old  goal  after 
four  hundred  years. 

That  proved  two  things:  Firstly,  that  the  social 
differentiation  and  the  division  of  property  in  the 
sinking  Roman  empire  corresponded  perfectly  to  the 
contemporaneous  stage  of  production  in  agriculture 
and  industry,  and  hence  was  unavoidable;  secondly, 
that  this  stage  of  production  had  not  been  essentially 
altered  for  better  or  worse  during  four  hundred 
years,  and  therefore  had  necessarily  produced  the 
same  division  of  property  and  the  same  classes  of 
population.  The  town  had  lost  its  supremacy  over 
the  country  during  the  last  centuries  of  the  Roman 
empire,  and  had  not  regained  it  during  the  first  cen- 
turies of  German  rule.  This  presupposes  a  low  stage 
of  agriculture  and  industry.  Such  a  general  condi- 
tion produces  of  necessity  the  domination  of  great 
proprietors  and  the  dependence  of  small  farmers. 
How  impossible  it  was  to  graft  either  the  slave  labor 
of  Roman  latifundian  economy  or  the  compulsory 
labor  of  the  new  large  scale  production  into  such  a 
society,  is  proved  by  Charlemagne's  very  extensive 
experiments  with  his  famous  imperial  country  resi- 
dences that  left  hardly  a  trace.  These  experiments 
were  continued  only  by  the  convents  and  brought 
results  only  for  them.  But  the  convents  were  ab- 
normal social  institutions,  founded  on  celibacy.  They 
could  do  exceptional  work,  but  they  had  to  remain 
exceptions  themselves  for  this  very  reason. 

Yet  some  progress  had  been  made  during  these 
four  hundred  years.  Although  in  the  end  we  find 
the  same  main  classes  as  in  the  beginning,  still  the 
human  beings  that  ^made  up  these  classes  had 
changed.  The  ancient  slavery  had  disappeared;  gone 
were  also  the  beggared  freemen  who  had  despised 
work  as  slavish.     Between  the  Roman  colonist  and 


188  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

the  new  serf,  there  had  been  the  free  Frank  peasant. 
The  "useless  remembrance  and  the  vain  feud"  of  the 
decaying  Roman  nation  was  dead  and  gone.  The  so- 
cial classes  of  the  ninth  century  had  been  formed 
during  the  travail  of  a  new  civilization,  not  in  the 
demoralization  of  a  sinking  one.  The  new  race,  mas- 
ters and  servants,  were  a  race  of  men  as  compared  to 
their  Roman  predecessors.  The  relation  of  powerful 
landlords  to  serving  peasants,  which  had  been  the 
unavoidable  result  of  collapse  in  the  antique  world, 
was  for  the  Franks  the  point  of  departure  on  a  new 
line  of  development.  Moreover,  unproductive  as  these 
four  hundred  years  may  appear,  they  left  behind  one 
great  product:  the  modern  nationalities,  the  reorgan- 
ization and  differentiation  of  West  European  human- 
ity for  the  coming  history.  The  Germans  had  indeed 
infused  a  new  life  into  Europe.  Therefore  the  dis- 
solution of  the  states  in  the  German  period  did  not 
end  in  a  subjugation  after  the  Norse-Saracene  plan, 
but  in  a  continued  development  of  the  estate  of  the 
royal  beneficiaries  and  an  increasing  submission 
(commendatio)  to  feudalism,  and  in  such  a  tremen- 
dous increase  of  the  population,  that  no  more  than 
two  centuries  later  the  bloody  drain  of  the  crusades 
could  be  sustained  without  injury. 

What  was  the  mysterious  charm  by  which  the  Ger- 
mans infused  a  new  life  into  decrepit  Europe?  Was 
It  an  innate  magic  power  of  the  German  race,  as 
our  jingo  historians  would  have  it?  By  no  means. 
Of  course,  the  Germans  were  a  highly  gifted  Aryan 
branch  and,  especially  at  that  time,  in  full  process 
of  vigorous  development.  They  did  not,  however, 
rejuvenate  Europe  by  their  specific  national  proper- 
ties, but  simply  by  their  barbarism,  their  gentile 
constitution. 

Their  personal  efficiency  and  bravery,  their  love 
of  liberty,   and  their  democratic  instinct  which  re- 


RISE  OF  THE  STATE  AMONG  GERMANS  189 

garded  all  public  affairs  as  its  own  affairs,  in  short 
all  those  properties  which  the  Romans  had  lost  and 
which  were  alone  capable  of  forming  new  states  and 
raising  new  nationalities  out  of  the  muck  of  the 
Roman  world— what  were  they  but  characteristic 
marks  of  the  barbarians  in  the  upper  stage,  fruits  of 
the  gentile  constitution? 

If  they  transformed  the  antique  form  of  mono- 
gamy, mitigated  the  male  rule  in  the  family  and  gave 
a  higher  position  to  women  than  the  classic  world 
had  ever  known,  what  enabled  them  to  do  so,  unless 
it  was  their  barbarism,  their  gentile  customs,  their 
living  inheritance  of  the  time  of  maternal  law? 

If  they  could  safely  transmit  a  trace  of  the  genuine 
gentile  order,  the  mark  communes,  to  the  feudal 
states  of  at  least  three  of  the  most  important  coun- 
tries—Germany, North  of  France,  and  England— and 
thus  give  a  local  coherence  and  the  means  of  resist- 
ance to  the  oppressed  class,  the  peasants,  even  under 
the  hardest  medieval  serfdom;  means  which  neither 
the  slaves  of  antiquity  nor  the  modem  proletarian 
found  ready  at  hand— to  whom  did  they  owe  this,  un- 
less it  was  again  their  barbarism,  their  exclusively 
barbarian  mode  of  settling  in  gentes? 

And  in  conclusion,  if  they  could  develop  and  uni- 
versally introduce  the  mild  form  of  servitude  which 
they  had  been  practicing  at  home,  and  which  more 
and  more  displaced  slavery  also  in  the  Roman  em- 
pire—to whom  was  it  due,  unless  it  was  again  their 
barbarism  thanks  to  which  they  had  not  yet  arrived 
at  complete  slavery,  neither  in  the  form  of  the  an- 
cient labor  slaves,  nor  in  that  of  the  oriental  house 
slaves? 

This  milder  form  of  servitude,  as  Fourier  first 
stated,  gave  to  the  oppressed  the  means  of  their 
gradual  emancipation  as  a  class  (fournit  aux  culti- 
vateurs  des  moyens  d'affranchissement  coUectif  et 


1 90  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

progressif)  and  is  therefore  far  superior  to  slavery, 
which  permits  only  the  immediate  enfranchisement 
of  the  individual  without  any  transitory  stage.  An- 
tiquity did  not  know  any  abolition  of  slavery  by  re- 
bellion, but  the  serfs  of  the  middle  ages  gradually 
enforced  their  liberation  as  a  class. 

Every  vital  and  productive  germ  with  which  the 
Germans  inoculated  the  Roman  world,  was  due  to 
barbarism.  Indeed,  ohly  barbarians  are  capable  of 
rejuvenating  a  world  laboring  under  the  death  throes 
of  unnerved  civilization.  And  the  higher  stage  of 
barbarism,  to  which  and  in  which  the  Germans 
worked  their  way  up  previous  to  the  migrations,  was 
best  calculated  to  prepare  them  for  this  work.  That 
explains  everything. 


1 

\ 


CHAPTER  IX. 

bl^rbarism  and  civilization. 

Having  observed  the  dissolution  of  the  gentile 
order  in  the  three  concrete  cases  of  the  Greek,  Ro- 
man, and  German  nations,  we  may  now  investigate 
in  conclusion  the  general  economic  conditions  that 
began  by  undermining  the  gentile  organization  of 
society  during  the  upper  stage  of  barbarism  and 
ended  by  doing  away  with  it  entirely  at  the  ad- 
vent of  civilization.  Marx's  "Capital"  will  be  as 
necessary  for  the  successful  completion  of  this  task 
as  Morgan's  "Ancient  Society." 

A  growth  of  the  middle  stage  and  a  product  of 
further  development  during  the  upper  stage  of  sav- 
agery, the  gens  reached  its  prime,  as  near  as  we 
can  judge  from  our  sources  of  information,  in  the 
lower  stage  of  barbarism.  With  this  stage,  then,  we 
begin  our  investigation. 

In  our  standard  example,  the  American  redskins 
of  that  time,  we  find  the  gentile  constitution  fully 
developed.  A  tribe  had  differentiated  into  several 
gentes,  generally  two.  Through  the  increase  of  the 
population,  these  original  gentes  again  divided  into 
several  daughter  gentes,  making  the  mother  gens  a 
phratry.  The  tribe  itself  split  up  into  several  tribes, 
in  each  of  which  we  again  meet  a  large  number  of 
representatives  of  the  old  gentes.  In  certain  cases 
a  federation  united  the  related  tribes.  This  simple 
organization  fully  sufficed  for  the  social  conditions 
out  of  which  it  had  grown.  It  was  nothing  else  than 
the  innate,  spontaneous  expression  of  those  condi- 
tions, and  it  was  well  calculated  to  smooth  over  all 
internal   difficulties   that   could   arise   in   this   social 


192  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

organization.  External  diflSculties  were  settled  by 
war.  Such  a  war  could  end  in  the  annihilation  of  a 
tribe,  but  never  in  its  subjugation.  It  is  the  gran- 
deur and  at  the  same  time  the  limitation  of  the 
gentile  order  that  it  has  no  room  either  for  masters 
or  servants.  There  were  as  yet  no  distinctions  be- 
tween rights  and  duties.  The  question  whether  he 
had  a  right  to  take  part  in  public  affairs,  to  practice 
blood  revenge  or  to  demand  atonement  for  injuries 
would  have  appeared  as  absurd  to  an  Indian,  as  the 
question  whether  it  was  his  duty  to  eat,  sleep,  and 
hunt.  Nor  could  any  division  of  a  tribe  or  gens  into 
different  classes  take  place.  This  leads  us  to  the 
investigation  of  the  economic  basis  of  those  condi- 
tions. 

The  population  was  very  small  in  numbers.  It  was 
collected  only  on  the  territory  of  the  tribe.  Next  to 
this  territory  was  the  hunting  ground  surrounding  it 
in  a  wide  circle.  A  neutral  forest  formed  the  line 
of  demarcation  from  other  tribes.  The  division  of 
labor  was  quite  primitive.  The  work  was  simply 
divided  between  the  two  sexes.  The  men  went  to 
war,  hunted,  fished,  provided  the  raw  material  for 
food  and  the  tools  necessary  for  these  pursuits.  The 
women  cared  for  the  house,  and  prepared  food  and 
clothing;  they  cooked,  weaved  and  sewed.  Each  sex 
was  master  of  its  own  field  of  activity;  the  men  In 
the  forest,  the  women  in  the  house.  Each  sex  also 
owned  the  tools  made  and  used  by  it;  the  men  were 
the  owners  of  the  weapons,  of  the  hunting  and  fish- 
ing tackle,  the  women  of  the  household  goods  and 
utensils.  The  household  was  communistic,  compris- 
ing several,  and  often  many,  families.*     Whatever 

Author's  note. 

•Especially  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America;  see  Ban- 
croft. Among  the  Haldahs  of  the  Queen  Charlotte  Islands 
some  households  gather  as  many  as  TOO  members  under  one 
roof.    Among  the  Nootkas  whole  tribes  lived  under  one  roof. 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  193 

was  produced  and  used  collectively,  was  regarded  as 
conimon  property:  the  house,  the  garden,  the  long 
boat.  Here,  and  only  here,  then,  do  we  find  the  "self- 
earned  property"  which  jurists  and  economists  have 
falsely  attributed  to  civilized  society,  the  last  decep- 
tive pretext  of  legality  on  which  modern  capitalist 
property  is  leaning. 

But  humanity  did  not  everywhere  remain  In  this 
stage.  In  Asia  they  found  animals  that  could  be 
tamed  and  propagated  in  captivity.  The  wild  buffalo 
cow  had  to  be  hunted  down;  the  tame  cow  gave 
birth  to  a  calf  once  a  year,  and  also  furnished  milk. 
Some  of  the  most  advanced  tribes— Aryans,  Semites,  j 
perhaps  also  Turanians — devoted  themselves  mainly! 
to  taming,  and  later  to  raising  and  tending,  domestic* 
animals.  The  segregation  of  cattle  raising  tribes  " 
from  the  rest  of  the  barbarians  constitutes  the  first 
great  division  of  social  labor.  These  stock  raising 
tribes  did  not  only  produce  more  articles  of  food 
than  the  rest  of  the  barbarians,  but  also  different 
kinds  of  products.  They  were  ahead  of  the  others 
by  having  at  their  disposal  not  alone  milk,  milk 
products,  and  a  greater  abundance  of  meat,  but  also 
skins,  wool,  goat's  hair,  and  the  spun  and  woven 
goods  which  the  growing  abundance  of  the  raw  mate- 
rial brought  into  common  use.  This  for  the  first 
time  made  a  regular  exchange  of  products  possible. 
In  former  stages,  exchange  could  only  take  place 
occasionally,  and  an  exceptional  ability  in  manu- 
facturing weapons  and  tools  may  have  led  to  a 
transient  division  of  labor.  For  example,  unques- 
tionable remains  of  workshops  for  stone  implements 
of  the  neolithic  period  have  been  found  in  many 
places.  The  artists  who  developed  their  ability  in 
those  shops,  most  probably  worked  for  the  collec- 
tivity, as  did  the  artisans  of  the  Indian  gentile  order. 
At  any  rate,  no  other  exchange  than  that  within  the 


194  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

tribe  could  exist  in  that  stage,  and  even  that  was 
an  exception.  But  after  the  segregation  of  the  stock 
raising  tribes  we  find  all  the  conditions  favorable  to 
an  exchange  between  groups  of  different  tribes,  and 
to  a  further  development  of  this  mode  of  trading 
into  a  fixed  institution.  Originally,  tribe  exchanged 
with  tribe  through  the  agency  of  their  tribal  heads. 
But  when  the  herds  drifted  into  the  hands  of  private 
individuals,  then  the  exchange  between  individuals 
prevailed  more  and  more,  until  it  became  the  estab- 
lished form.  The  principal  article  of  exchange  which 
the  stock  raising  tribes  offered  to  their  neighbors 
was  in  the  form  of  domestic  animals.  Cattle  became 
the  favorite  commodity  by  which  all  other  commodi- 
ties were  measured  in  exchange.  In  short,  cattle  as- 
sumed the  functions  of  money  and  served  in  this 
capacity  as  early  as  that  stage.  With  such  necessity 
and  rapidity  was  the  demand  for  a  money  com- 
modity developed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  ex- 
change of  commodities. 

Horticulture,  probably  unknown  to  the  Asiatic  bar- 
barians of  the  lower  stage,  arose  not  later  than  the 
middle  stage  of  barbarism,  as  the  forerunner  of  agri- 
culture. The  climate  of  the  Turanian  Highland  does 
not  admit  of  a  nomadic  life  without  a  supply  of 
stock  feed  for  the  long  and  hard  winter.  Hence  the 
cultivation  of  meadows  and  grain  was  indispensa- 
ble. The  same  is  true  of  the  steppes  north  of  the 
Black  Sea.  Once  grain  had  been  grown  for  cattle,  it 
soon  became  human  food.  The  cultivated  land  be- 
longed as  yet  to  the  tribe  and  was  assigned  first 
to  the  gens,  which  in  its  turn  distributed  it  to  the 
households,  and  finally  to  individuals;  always  for 
use  only,  not  for  possession.  The  users  may  have 
had  certain  claims  to  the  land,  but  that  was  all. 

Two  of  the  industrial  acquisitions  of  this  stage 
are  especially  important.     The  first  is  the  weaving 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  195 

loom,  the  second  the  melting  of  metal  ore  and  the 
use  of  metals  in  manufacture.  Copper,  tin,  and 
their  alloy,  bronze,  were  the  most  essential  of  them. 
Bronze  furnished  tools  and  weapons,  but  could  not 
displace  stone  implements.  Only  iron  could  have 
done  that,  but  the  production  of  iron  was  as  yet  un- 
known. Gold  and  silver  were  already  used  for  orna- 
ment and  decoration,  and  must  have  been  far  more 
precious  than  copper  and  bronze. 

The  increase  of  production  in  all  branches— stock 
raising,  agriculture,  domestic  handicrafts— enabled 
human  labor  power  to  produce  more  than  was  nec- 
essary for  its  maintenance.  It  increased  at  the 
sa*me  time  the  amount  of  daily  work  that  fell  to  the 
lot  of  every  member  of  a  gens,  a  household,  or  a 
single  family.  The  addition  of  more  labor  power 
became  desirable.  It  was  furnished  by  war;  the 
captured  enemies  were  transformed  into  slaves. 
Under  the  given  historical  conditions,  the  first  great 
division  of  social  labor,  by  increasing  the  productivity 
of  labor,  adding  to  the  wealth,  and  enlarging  the 
field  of  productive  activity,  necessarily  carried  slav- 
ery in  its  wake.  Out  of  the  first  great  division 
of  social  labor  arose  the  first  great  division  of  so- 
ciety into  two  classes:  masters  and  servants,  exploit- 
ers and  exploited. 

How  and  when  the  herds  were  transferred  from 
the  collective  ownership  of  the  tribe  or  gens  to  the 
proprietorship  of  the  heads  of  the  families,  is  not 
known  to  us.  But  it  must  have  been  practically  ac- 
complished in  this  stage.  The  herds  and  the  other 
new  objects  of  wealth  brought  about  a  revolution  In 
the  family.  Procuring  the  means  of  existence  had 
always  been  the  man's  business.  The  tools  of  pro- 
duction were  manufactured  and  owned  by  him.  The 
herds  were  the  new  tools  of  production,  and  their 
taming  and  tending  was  his  work.    Hence  he  owned 


196  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

the  cattle  and  the  commodities  and  slaves  obtained  in 
exchange  for  them.  All  the  surplus  now  resulting 
from  production  fell  to  the  share  of  the  man.  The 
woman  shared  in  its  fruition,  but  she  could  not  claim 
its  ownership.  The  "savage"  warrior  and  hunter 
had  been  content  to  occupy  the  second  place  in  the 
house,  to  give  precedence  to  .the  woman.  The 
"gentler"  shepherd,  standing  on  his  wealth,  assumed 
the  first  place  and  forced  the  woman  back  into  the 
second  place.  And  she  had  no  occasion  to  complain. 
The  division  of  labor  in  the  family  had  regulated  the 
distribution  of  property  between  man  and  wife.  Thig 
division  of  labor  remained  unchanged.  Yet  the 
former  domestic  relation  was  now  reversed,  simply 
because  the  division  of  labor  outside  of  the  family 
had  been  altered.  The  same  cause  that  once  had  se- 
cured the  supremacy  in  the  house  for  women,  viz., 
the  confining  of  women's  activity  to  domestic  labor, 
now  assured  the  supremacy  of  the  men  in  the  house- 
holds. The  domestic  labor  of  women  was  considered 
insignificant  in  comparison  to  men's  work  for  a 
living.  The  latter  was  everything,  the  former  a 
negligible  quantity.  At  this  early  stage  we  can 
already  see  that  the  emancipation  of  women  and 
their  equality  with  men  are  impossible  and  remain 
so,  as  long  as  women  are  excluded  from  sociaLpro- 
duction  and  restricted  to  domestic  labor.  The  eman- 
cipation of  women  becomes  feasible  only  then  when 
women  are  enabled  to  take  part  extensively  in  sociai 
production,  and  when  domestic  duties  require  theii 
attention  in  a  minor  degree.  This  state  of  things 
was  brought  about  by  the  modern  great  industries, 
which  not  only  admit  of  women's  liberal  participa- 
tion in  production,  but  actually  call  for  It  and,  b^ 
sides,  endeavor  to  transform  domestic  work  also  Into 
a  public  industry. 
Man's  advent  to  practical  supremacy  in  the  house- 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  197 

hold  marked  the  removal  of  the  last  barrier  to  his 
universal  supremacy.  His  unlimited  rule  was  em- 
phasized and  endowed  with  continuity  by  the  down- 
fall of  matriarchy,  the  introduction  of  patriarchy, 
and  the  gradual  transition  from  the  pairing  family 
to  the  monogamic  family.  This  made  a  breach  in  the 
old  gentile  order.  The  monogamic  family  became  a 
power  and  lifted  a  threatening  hand  against  the 
gens. 

The  next  step  brings  us  to  the  upper  stage  of  bai^ 
barism,  that  period  in  which  all  nations  of  civiliza- 
tion go  through  their  heroic  era.  It  is  the  time  of 
the  iron  sword,  but  also  of  the  iron  plow  share  and 
axe.  The  iron  had  become  the  servant  of  man.  It 
is  the  last  and  most  important  of  all  raw  products 
that  play  a  revolutionary  role  in  history;  the  last— 
if  we  except  the  potato. 

Iron  brought  about  agriculture  on  a  larger  scale 
and  the  clearing  of  extensive  forest  tracts  for  cul- 
tivation. It  gave  to  the  craftsman  a  tool  of  such 
hardness  and  sharpness  that  no  stone,  no  other 
known  metal,  could  withstand  it.  All  this  came 
about  gradually.  The  first  iron  was  often  softer 
than  bronze.  Therefore  stone  implements  disap- 
peared very  slowly.  Not  only  in  the  Hildebrand 
Song,  but  also  at  Hastings  in  1066,  stone  axes  were 
still  used  in  fighting.  But  progress  was  now  irre- 
sistible, less  interrupted  and  more  rapid.  The  town, 
inclosing  houses  of  stone  or  tiles  within  its  turreted 
and  crested  stone  walls,  became  the  central  seat  of 
the  tribe  or  federation  of  tribes.  It  showed  an  as- 
tounding progress  of  architecture,  but  also  an  in- 
crease of  danger  and  of  the  demand  for  protection. 
Wealth  increased  rapidly,  but  it  was  the  wealth  of 
private  inxiividuals.  Weaving,  metal  work  and  other 
more  and  more  differentiating  industries  developed 
an  increasing  variety  and  display  of  art  in  produc- 


iqs  the  origin  of  the  family 

tion.  Agriculture  furnished  not  alone  grain,  peas, 
beans  and  fruit,  but  also  oil  and  wine,  the  prepfttration 
of  which  had  now  been  learned.  Such  a  diversity  of 
action  could  not  be  displayed  by  any  single  indi- 
vidual. The  second  great  division  of  labor  took 
place:  handicrafts  separatea  from  agriculture.  The 
growing  intensity  of  production  and  the  increased 
productivity  enhanced  the  value  of  iiuman  labor 
power.  Slavery,  which  had  been  a  rising  and  spo- 
radic factor  in  the  preceding  stage,  now  became  an 
essential  part  of  the  social  system.  The  slaves  ceased 
to  be  simple  assistants.  They  were  now  driven  in 
scores  to  the  work  m  the  fields  and  shops.  The 
division  of  production  into  two  great  branches,  agri- 
culture and  handicrafts,  gave  rise  to  production  for 
exchange,  the  production  of  commodities.  Trade 
arose  at  the  same  xime,  not  only  in  the  interior  and 
on  the  tribal  boundaries,  but  also  in  the  form  of 
maritime  exchange.  All  this  was  as  yet  in  a  very 
undeveloped  state.  The  precious  metals  gained  pref- 
erence as  a  universal  money  commodity,  but  still 
uncoined  and  exchanged  merely  by  dead  weight. 

The  distinctiou  between  rich  and  poor  was  added 
to  that  between  free  men  and  slaves.  This  and  the 
new  division  or  labor  constitute  a  new  division  of 
society  into  classes.  The  differences  in  the  amount 
of  property  belonging  to  the  several  family  heads 
broke  up  the  old  communistic  households  one  by 
one,  wherever  tney  might  have  been  preserved  thus 
far.  This  made  an  end  to  the  collective  cultivation 
of  the  soil  for  the  account  of  the  community.  The 
cultivated  land  was  assigned  for  use  to  the  several 
families,  first  tor  a  limited  time,  later  for  once  and 
all.  The  transition  to  full  private  property  was 
accomplished  gradually  and  simultaneously  with  the 
transition   fron,   the   pairing   family   to    monogamy. 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  199 

The  monogamous  family  began  to  be  the  ecoaomic 
unit  of  society. 

The  increase  of  population  necessitated  a  closer 
consolidation  against  internal  and  external  foes.  The 
federation  of  related  tribes  became  unavoidable. 
Their  amalgamation,  and  thence  the  amalgamation 
of  the  separate  tribal  territories  to  one  national  ter- 
ritory, was  the  following  step.  The  military  leader- 
rex,  basileus,  thiudans— became  an  indispensable 
and  standing  official.  The  public  meeting  was  intro- 
duced wherever  it  did  not  yet  exist.  The  military 
leader,  the  council  of  chiefs,  and  the  public  meeting 
formed  tue  organs  of  the  military  democracy  that 
had  grown  out  of  the  gentile  constitution.  Military 
democracy— for  now  war  and  organization  for  wai; 
were  regular  functions  of  social  life.  The  wealth  of 
the  neighbors  excited  the  greed  of  nations  that  began 
to  regard  the  acquisition  of  wealth  as  one  of  the 
main  purposes  of  their  life.  They  were  barbarians: 
robbing  appeared  to  them  easier  and  more  honorable 
than  producing.  War,  once  simply  a  revenge  for 
transgressions  or  a  means  for  enlarging  a  territory 
that  had  become  too  narrow,  was  now  waged  for 
the  sake  of  plunder  alone  and  became  a  regular  pro- 
fession. Not  in  vain  did  threatening  walls  cast  a 
rigid  stare  all  around  the  new  fortified  towns:  their 
yawning  ditches  were  the  tomb  of  the  gentile  consti- 
tution, and  their  turrets  already  reached  up  into 
civilization.  The  internal  affairs  underwent  a  sim- 
ilar change.  The  plundering  wars  increased  the 
power  of  the  military  leader  and  of  the  subcommand- 
ers.  The  habitual  election  of  the  successors  from 
the  same  family  was  gi*adually  transformed  into 
hereditary  succession,  first  by  sufferance,  then  by 
claim,  and  finally  by  usurpation.  Thus  the  founda- 
tion of  hereditary  royalty  and  nobility  was  laid. 
In  this  manner  the  organs  of  the  gentile  constitution 


200  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

were  gradually  torn  away  from  their  roots  In  tSie 
nation,  tribe,  phratry  and  gens,  and  the  v^hole  gentile 
order  reversed  into  its  antithesis.  The  organization 
of  tribes  for  the  purpose  of  the  free  administration 
of  affairs  was  turned  into  an  organization  for  plun- 
dering and  oppressing  their  neighbors.  The  organs 
-Of  gentilism  changed  from  servants  of  the  public  will 
to  independent  organs  of  rule  oppressing  their  own 
people.  This  could  not  have  happened,  if  the  greed 
for  wealth  had.  not  divided  the  gentiles  into  rich  and 
poor;  if  the  "difference  of  property  in  a  gens  had  not 
changed  the  community  of  interest  into  antagonism 
of  the  gentiles"  (Karl  Marx);  and  if  the  extension 
of  slavery  had  not  begun  by  branding  work  for  a 
living  as  slavish  and  more  ignominious  than  plun- 
dering. 


We  have  now  reached  the  threshold  of  civiliza- 
tion. This  stage  is  inaugurated  by  a  new  progress 
in  the  division  of  labor.  In  the  lower  stage  of  bar- 
barism production  was  carried  on  for  use  only;  any 
acts  of  exchange  were  confined  to  single  cases  when 
a  surplus  was  accidentally  realized.  In  the  middle 
stage  of  barbarism  we  find  that  the  possession  of 
cattle  gave  a  regular  surplus  to  the  nomadic  nations 
with  sufficiently  large  herds.  At  the  same  time  there 
was  a  division  of  labor  between  nomadic  nations  and 
backward  nations  without  herds.  The  existence  of 
two  different  stages  of  production  side  by  side  fur- 
nished the  conditions  necessary  for  a  regular  ex- 
change. The  upper  stage  of  barbarism  introduced  a 
new  division  of  labor  between  agriculture  and  handi- 
crafts, resulting  in  the  production  of  a  continually 
increasing  amount  of  commodities  for  the  special 
purpose  of  exchange,  so  that  exchange  between  in- 
dividuals became  a  vital  function  of  society.  Civili- 
zation strengthened  and  intensified  all  the  established 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  201 

divisions  of  labor,  especially  by  rendering  the  con- 
trast between  city  and  country  more  pronounced. 
Either  the  town  may  have  the  economic  control  over 
the  country,  as  during  antiquity,  or  vice  versa,  as  in 
the  middle  ages.  A  third  division  of  labor  was  added 
by  civilization:  it  created  a  class  that  did  not  take 
part  in  production,  but  occupied  itself  merely  with 
the  exchange  of  products— the  merchants.  All  former 
attempts  at  class  formation  were  exclusively  con- 
cerned with  production.  They  divided  the  producers 
into  directors  and  directed,  or  into  producers  on  a 
more  or  less  extensive  scale.  But  here  a  class  ap- 
pears for  the  first  time  that  captures  the  control  of 
production  in  general  and  subjugates  the  producers 
to  its  rule,  without  talking  the  least  part  in  produc- 
tion. A  class  that  makes  itself  the  indispensable 
mediator  between  two  producers  and  exploits  them 
both  under  the  pretext  of  saving  them  the  trouble 
and  risk  of  exchange,  of  extending  the  markets  for 
their  products  to  distant  regions,  and  of  thus  becom- 
ing the  most  useful  class  in  society;  a  class  of  para- 
sites, genuine  social  ichneumons,  that  skim  the  cream 
off  production  at  home  and  abroad  as  a  reward  for 
very  Insignificant  services;  that  rapidly  amass  enor- 
mous wealth  and  gain  social  influence  accordingly; 
that  for  this  reason  reap  ever  new  honors  and  ever 
greater  control  of  production  during  the  period  of 
civilization,  until  they  at  last  bring  to  light  a  product 
of  their  own— periodical  crises  in  industry. 

At  the  stage  of  production  under  discussion,  our 
young  merchant  class  had  no  inkling  as  yet  of  the 
great  future  that  was  in  store  for  them.  But  they 
continued  to  organize,  to  make  themselves  invaluable, 
and  that  was  suflacient  for  the  moment.  At  the  same 
time  metal  coins  came  into  use,  and  through  them  a 
new  device  for  controlling  the  producers  and  their 
products.     The  commodity  of  commodities  that  was 


202  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

hiding  all  other  commodities  in  its  mysterious  bosom 
had  been  discovered,  a  charm  that  could  be  trans- 
formed at  will  into  any  desirable  or  coveted  thing. 
Whoever  held  it  in  his  possession  had  the  world  of 
production  at  his  command.  And  who  had  it  above 
all  others?  The  merchant.  In  his  hands  the  cult  of 
money  was  safe.  He  tooli  care  to  malve  it  plain  that 
all  commodities,  and  hence  all  producers,  must  pros- 
trate themselves  in  adoration  before  money.  He 
proved  by  practice  that  all  other  forms  of  wealth  are 
reduced  to  thin  wraiths  before  this  personification  of 
riches.  Never  again  did  the  power  of  money  show 
itself  in  such  primordial  brutality  and  violence  as 
in  its  youthful  days.  After  the  sale  of  commodities 
for  money  came  the  borrowing  of  money,  resulting 
in  interest  and  usury.  And  no  legislation  of  any 
later  period  stretches  the  debtor  so  mercilessly  at  the 
feet  of  the  speculating  creditor  as  the  antique  Gre- 
cian and  Roman  codes— both  of  them  spontaneous 
products  of  habit,  without  any  other  than  economic 
pressure. 

The  wealth  in  commodities  and  slaves  was  now 
further  increased  by  large  holdings  in  land.  The 
titles  of  the  individuals  to  the  lots  of  land  formerly 
assigned  to  them  by  the  gens  or  tribe  had  become  so 
well  established,  that  these  lots  were  now  owned 
and  inherited.  What  the  individuals  had  most  de- 
sired of  late  was  the  liberation  from  the  claim  of  the 
gentiles  to  their  lots,  a  claim  which  had  become  a 
veritable  fetter  for  them.  They  were  rid  of  this  fet- 
ter—but soon  after  they  were  also  rid  of  their  lots. 
The  full,  free  ownership  of  the  soil  implied  not  only 
the  possibility  of  uncurtailed  possession,  but  also  of 
selling  the  soil.  As  long  as  the  soil  belonged  to  the 
gens,  this  was  impossible.  But  when  the  new  land 
owner  shook  off  the  chains  of  the  priority  claim  of 
the  gens  and  tribe,  he  also  tore  the  bond  that  had  so 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  203 

long  tied  him  indissolubly  to  the  soil.  What  that 
meant  was  impressed  on  him  by  the  money  invented 
simultaneously  with  the  advent  of  private  property 
in  land.  The  soil  could  now  become  a  commodity  to 
be  bought  and  sold.  Hardly  had  private  ownership 
of  land  been  introduced,  when  the  mortgage  put  in 
its  appearance  (see  Athens).  As  hetaerism  and  pros- 
titution clung  to  the  heels  of  monogamy,  so  does 
from  now  on  the  mortgage  to  private  ownership  in 
land.  You  have  clamored  for  free,  full,  saleable  land. 
Well,  then,  there  you  have  it— tu  I'as  voulu,  Georges 
Dandin;  it  was  your  own  wish,  George  Dandin. 

Industrial  expansion,  money,  usury,  private  land, 
and  mortgage  thus  progressed  with  the  concentration 
and  centralization  of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  small 
class,  accompanied  by  the  increasing  impoverishment 
of  the  masses  and  the  increasing  mass  of  paupers. 
The  new  aristocracy  of  wealth,  so  far  as  it  did  not 
coincide  with  the  old  tribal  nobility,  forced  the  latter 
permanently  into  the  background  (in  Athens,  in 
Rome,  among  the  Germans).  And  this  division  of 
free  men  into  classes  according  to  their  wealth  was 
accompanied,  especially  in  Greece,  by  an  enormous 
increase  in  the  number  of  slaves  *  whose  forced 
labor  formed  the  basis  on  which  the  whole  super- 
structure of  society  was  reared. 

Let  us  now  see  what  became  of  the  gentile  consti- 
tution through  this  revolution  of  society.  Gentilism 
stood  powerless  in  the  face  of  the  new  elements  that 
had  grown  without  its  assistance.  It  was  dependent 
on  the  condition  that  the  members  of  a  gens,  or  of  a 
tribe,  should  live  together  in  the  same  territory  and 
be  its  exclusive  inhabitants.     That  had  long  ceased 

Author's  note. 

*The  number  of  slaves  in  Athens  was  365,000.  In  Corinth 
it  was  460,000  at  the  most  flourishing  time,  and  470,000  in 
Aegina;  in  both  cases  ten  times  the  number  of  free  citizens. 


204  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

to  be  the  case.  Gentes  and  tribes  were  everywhere 
hopelessly  intermingled,  slaves,  clients,  and  foreign- 
ers lived  among  citizens.  The  capacity  for  settling 
down  permanently  which  had  only  been  acquired 
near  the  end  of  the  middle  stage  of  barbarism,  was 
time  and  again  sidetracked  by  the  necessity  of  chang- 
ing the  abode  according  to  the  dictates  of  commerce, 
different  occupations  and  the  transfer  of  land.  The 
members  of  the  gentile  organizations  could  no  longer 
meet  for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of  their  com- 
mon interests.  Only  matters  of  little  importance, 
such  as  religious  festivals,  were  still  observed  in  an 
indifferent  way.  Beside  the  wants  and  interests  for 
the  care  of  which  the  gentile  organs  were  appointed 
and  fitted,  new  wants  and  interests  had  arisen  from 
the  revolution  of  the  conditions  of  existence  and  the 
resulting  change  in  social  classification.  These  new 
wants  and  interests  were  not  only  alien  to  the  old 
gentile  order,  but  thwarted  it  in  every  way.  The  In- 
terests of  the  craftsmen  created  by  division  of 
labor,  and  the  special  necessities  of  a  town  differing 
from  those  of  the  country,  required  new  organs.  But 
every  one  of  these  groups  was  composed  of  people 
from  different  gentes,  phratries,  and  tribes;  they  In- 
cluded even  strangers.  Hence  the  new  organs  nec- 
essarily had  to  form  outside  of  the  gentile  constitu- 
tion. But  by  the  side  of  it  meant  against  it.  And 
again,  in  every  gentile  organization  the  conflict  of 
interests  made  itself  felt  and  reached  its  climax  by 
combining  rich  and  poor,  usurers  and  debtors,  in  the 
same  gens  and  tribe.  There  was  furthermore  the 
mass  of  inhabitants  who  were  strangers  to  the  gen- 
tiles. These  strangers  could  become  very  powerful, 
as  in  Rome,  and  they  were  too  numerous  to  be  grad- 
ually absorbed  by  the  gentes  and  tribes.  The  gen- 
■^  tiles  confronted  these  masses  as  a  compact  body  of 
privileged  individuals.     What  had  once  been  a  nat- 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  205 

ural  democracy,  had  been  transformed  into  an  odious 
aristocracy.  The  gentile  constitution  had  grown  out 
of  a  society  that  did  not  know  any  internal  contra- 
dictions, and  it  was  only  adapted  to  such  a  society. 
It  had  no  coercive  power  except  public  opinion.  But 
now  a  society  had  developed  that  by  force  of  all  its 
economic  conditions  of  existence  divided  humanity 
into  freemen  and  slaves,  and  exploiting  rich  and  ex- 
ploited poor.  A  society  that  not  only  could  never 
reconcile  these  contradictions,  but  drove  them  ever 
more  to  a  climax.  Such  a  society  could  only  exist 
by  a  continual  open  struggle  of  all  classes  against 
one  another,  or  under  the  supremacy  of  a  third  power 
that  under  a  pretense  of  standing  above  the  strug- 
gling classes  stifled  their  open  conflict  and  permitted 
a  class  struggle  only  on  the  economic  field,  in  a  so- 
called  "legal"  form.  Gentilism  had  ceased  to  live.  It 
was  crushed  by  the  division  of  labor  and  by  its  result, 
the  division  of  society  into  classes.  It  was  replaced 
by  the  State. 


In  preceding  chapters  we  have  shown  by  three  con- 
crete examples  the  three  main  forms  in  which  the 
state  was  built  up  on  the  ruins  of  gentilism.  Athens 
represented  the  simplest,  the  classic  type:  the  state 
grew  directly  and  mainly  out  of  class  divisions  that 
developed  within  gentile  society.  In  Rome  the  gen- 
tile organization  became  an  exclusive  aristocracy 
amid  a  numerous  plebs  of  outsiders  who  had  only 
duties,  but  no  rights.  The  victory  of  the  plebs  burst 
the  old  gentile  order  asunder  and  erected  on  its  re- 
mains the  state  which  soon  engulfed  both  gentile  aris- 
tocracy and  plebs.  Finally,  among  the  German  con- 
querors of  the  Roman  empire,  the  state  grew  as  a 
direct  result  of  the  conquest  of  large  foreign  terri- 
tories which  the  gentile  constitution  was  powerless  to 
control.    But  this  conquest  did  not  necessitate  either 


206  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

a  serious  fight  with  the  former  population  or  a  more 
advanced  division  of  labor.  Conquerors  and  con- 
quered were  almost  in  the  same  stage  of  economic 
development,  so  that  the  economic  basis  of  society 
remained  undisturbed.  Hence  gentilism  could  pre- 
serve for  many  centuries  an  unchanged  territorial 
character  in  the  form  of  mark  communes,  and  even 
rejuvenate  itself  in  the  nobility  and  patrician  fam- 
ilies of  later  years,  or  in  the  peasantry,  as  e.  g.  in 
Dithmarsia.* 

The  state,  then,  is  by  no  means  a  power  forced  on 
society  from  outside;  neither  is  it  the  "realization  of 
the  ethical  idea,"  "the  image  and  the  realization  of 
reason,"  as  Hegel  maintains.  It  is  simply  a  product 
of  society  at  a  certain  stage  of  evolution.  It  is  the 
confession  that  this  society  has  become  hopelessly 
divided  against  itself,  has  entangled  itself  in  irrecon- 
cilable contradictions'  which  it  is  powerless  to  ban- 
ish. In  order  that  these  contradictions,  these  classes 
with  conflicting  economic  interests,  may  not  annihi- 
late themselves  and  society  in  a  useless  struggle,  a 
power  becomes  necessary  that  stands  apparently 
above  society  and  has  the  function  of  keeping  down 
the  conflicts  and  maintaining  "order."  And  this, 
power,  the  outgrowth  of  society,  but  assuming  supre- 
macy over  it  and  becoming  more  and  more  divorced 
from  it,  is  the  state. 

The  state  differs  from  gentilism  in  that  it  first  di- 
vides its  members  by  territories.  As  we  have  seen, 
the  old  bonds  of  blood  kinship  uniting  the  gentile 
bodies  had  become  inefficient,  because  they  were  de- 
pendent on  the  condition,  now  no  longer  a  fact,  that 
all  gentiles  should  live  on  a  certain  territory.     The 

Author's  note. 

♦The  first  historian  who  had  at  least  a  vague  conception 
of  the  nature  of  the  gens  was  Niebuhr,  thanks  to  his  famil- 
iarity with  the  Dithmarsian  families.  The  same  source, 
however,  is  also  responsible  for  his  errors. 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  207 

territory  was  the  same;  but  the  human  beings  had 
changed.  Hence  the  division  by  territories  was 
chosen  as  the  point  of  departure,  and  citizens  had  to 
exercise  their  rights  and  duties  wherever  they  chose 
their  abode  without  regard  to  gens  and  tribe.  This 
organization  of  inhabitants  by  localities  is  a  common 
feature  of  all  states.  It  seems  natural  to  us  now. 
But  we  have  seen  what  long  and  hard  fighting  was 
required  before  it  could  take,  in  Athens  and  Rome, 
the  place  of  the  old  organization  by  blood  kinship. 

In  the  second  place,  the  state  created  a  public  power 
of  coercion  that  did  no  longer  coincide  with  the  old 
self-organized  and  armed  population.  This  special 
power  of  coercion  is  necessary,  because  a  self- 
organized  army  of  the  people  has  become  impossible 
since  the  division  of  society  into  classes  took  place. 
For  the  slaves  belonged  also  to  society.  The  90,000 
citizens  of  Athens  formed  only  a  privileged  class  com- 
pared to  the  365,000  slaves.  The  popular  army  of  the 
Athenian  democracy  was  an  aristocratic  public  power 
designed  to  keep  the  slaves  down.  But  we  have  seen 
that  a  police  force  became  also  necessary  to  maintain 
order  among  the  citizens.  This  public  power  of  co- 
ercion exists  in  every  state.  It  is  not  composed  of 
armed  men  alone,  but  has  also  such  objects  as  prisons 
and  correction  houses  attached  to  it,  that  were  un- 
known to  gentilism.  It  may  be  very  small,  almost 
infinitesimal,  in  societies  with  feebly  developed  class 
antagonisms  and  in  out  of  the  way  places,  as  was 
once  the  case  in  certain  regions  of  the  United  States. 
But  it  increases  in  the  same  ratio  in  which  the  class 
antagonisms  become  more  pronounced,  and  in  which 
neighboring  states  become  larger  and  more  popu- 
lous. A  conspicuous  example  is  modern  Europe, 
where  the  class  struggles  and  wars  of  conquest  have 
nursed  the  public  power  to  such  a  size  that  it  threat- 
ens to  swallow  the  whole  society  and  the  state  itself. 


2o8  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

In  order  to  maintain  this  public  power,  contributions* 
of  the  citizens  become  necessary— the  taxes.  These 
were  absolutely  unknown  in  gentile  society.  But  to- 
day we  get  our  full  measure  of  them.  As  civilization 
makes  further  progress,  these  taxes  are  no  longer 
sufficient  to  cover  public  expenses.  The  state  makes 
drafts  on  the  future,  contracts  loans,  public  debts. 
Old  Europe  can  tell  a  story  of  them. 

In  possession  of  the  public  power  and  of  the  right 
of  taxation,  the  officials  in  their  capacity  as  state 
organs  are  now  exalted  above  society.  The  free  and 
voluntary  respect  that  was  accorded  to  the  organs  of 
gentilism  does  not  satisfy  them  any  more,  even  If 
they  might  have  it.  Representatives  of  a  power  that 
is  divorced  from  society,  they  must  enforce  respect 
by  exceptional  laws  that  render  them  specially  sacred 
and  inviolable.*  The  lowest  police  employee  of  the 
civilized  state  has  more  "authority"  than  all  the 
organs  of  gentilism  combined.  But  the  mightiest 
prince  and  the  greatest  statesman  or  general  of  civ- 
ilization may  look  with  envy  on  the  spontaneous  and 
undisputed  esteem  that  was  the  privilege  of  the  least 
gentile  sachem.  The  one  stands  in  the  middle  of  so- 
ciety, the  other  is  forced  to  assume  a  position  outside 
and  above  it. 

The  state  is  the  result  of  the  desire  to  keep  down 
class  conflicts.  But  having  arisen  amid  these  con- 
flicts, it  is  as  a  rule  the  state  of  the  most  powerful 
economic  class  that  by  force  of  its  economic  supre- 
macy becomes  also  the  ruling  political  class  and  thus 
acquires  new  m^ans  of  subduing  and  exploiting  the 
oppressed  masses.  The  antique  state  was,  therefore, 
the  state  of  the  slave  owners  for  the  purpose  of  hold- 


Translator's  note, 

•The  recent  demand  for  a  law  declaring  the  person  of  the 
T7.  S.  President  sacred  above  all  other  representatives  of  the 
public  power  and  making  an  assault  on  him  an  exceptional 
crime  is  a  very  good  case  in  point. 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  2(X) 

Ing  the  slaves  in  check.  The  feudal  state  was  the 
organ  of  the  nobility  for  the  oppression  of  the  serfs 
and  dependent  farmers.  The  modern  representative 
state  is  the  tool  of  the  capitalist  exploiters  of  wage 
labor.  At  certain  periods  it  occurs  exceptionally  that 
the  struggling  classes  balance  each  other  so  nearly 
that  the  public  power  gains  a  certain  degree  of  inde- 
pendence by  posing  as  the  mediator  between  them. 
The  absolute  monarchy  of  the  seventeenth  and  eight- 
eenth century  was  in  such  a  position,  balancing  the 
nobles  and  the  burghers  against  one  another.  So 
was  the  Bonapartism  of  the  first,  and  still  more  of 
the  second,  empire,  playing  the  proletariat  against  the 
bourgeoisie  and  vice  versa.  The  latest  performance 
of  this  kind,  in  which  ruler  and  ruled  appear  equally 
ridiculous,  is  the  new  German  empire  of  Bismarckian 
make,  in  which  capitalists  and  laborers  are  balanced 
against  one  another  and  equally  cheated  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  degenerate  Prussian  cabbage  junkers.* 

In  most  of  the  historical  states,  the  rights  of  the 
citizens  are  differentiated  according  to  their  wealth. 
This  is  a  direct  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  the  state 
is  organized  for  the  protection  of  the  possessing 
against  the  non-possessing  classes.  The  Athenian  and 
Roman  classification  by  incomes  shows  this.  It  is 
also  seen  in  the  medieval  state  of  feudalism  in  which 
the  political  power  depended  on  the  quantity  of  real 
estate.  It  is  again  seen  in  the  electoral  qualifications 
of  the  modern  representative  state.  The  political 
recognition  of  the  differences  in  wealth  is  by  no 
means  essential.  On  the  contrary,  it  marks  a  low 
stage  of  state  development.  The  highest  form  of  the 
state,  the  democratic  republic,  knows  officially  noth- 


Translator's  note. 

♦"Junker"   is  a  contemptuous  term  for  the   land-owning 
nobility. 


210  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

ing  of  property  distinctions.*  It  is  that  form  of  the 
state  which  under  modern  conditions  of  society  be- 
comes more  and  more  an  unavoidable  necessity.  The 
last  decisive  struggle  between  proletariat  and  bour- 
geoisie can  only  be  fought  out  under  this  state  form.* 
In  such  a  state,  wealth  exerts  its  power  indirectly, 
but  all  the  more  safely.  This  is  done  partly  in  the 
form  of  direct  corruption  of  officials,  after  the  classi- 
cal type  of  the  United  States,  or  in  the  form  of  an 
alliance  between  government  and  bankers  which  is 
established  all  the  more  easily  when  the  public  debt 
increases  and  when  corporations  concentrate  in  their 
hands  not  only  the  means  of  transportation,  but  also 
production  itself,  using  the  stock  exchange  as  a  cen- 
ter. The  United  States  and  the  latest  French  re- 
public are  striking  examples,  and  good  old  Switzer- 
land has  contributed  its  share  to  illustrate  this  point. 
That  a  democratic  republic  is  not  necessary  for  this 
fraternal  bond  between  stock  exchange  and  govern- 
ment is  proved  by  England  and  last,  not  least,  Ger- 
many, where  it  is  doubtful  whether  Bismarck  or 
Bleichroeder  was  more  favored  by  the  introduction 
of  universal  suffrage.*     The  possessing   class   rules 


Translator's  noto. 

♦In  the  United  States,  the  poll  tax  is  an  indirect  property 
qualification,  as  it  strikes  those  who,  through  lack  of  em- 
ployment, sickness  or  invalidity,  are  unable  to  spare  the 
amount,  however  small,  of  this  tax.  Furthermore,  the  laws 
requiring  a  continuous  residence  in  the  precinct,  the  town, 
the  countv,  and  the  State  as  a  qualification  for  voters  have 
the  effect  of  disqualifving  a  great  number  of  workingmen 
who  are  forced  to  change  their  abode  according  to  their 
opportunities  for  employment.  And  the  educational  quali- 
fications which  especially  the  Southern  States  are  rigidly 
enforcing  tend  to  disfranchise  the  great  mass  of  the  negroes, 
who  form  the  main  body  of  the  working  class  in  those  States. 
Translator's  note. 

♦In  Belgium,  where  the  proletariat  is  now  on  the  verge  or 
gaining  political  supremacy,  the  battle  cry  is:  "S.  U.  et  R. 
P."  (Suffrage  Universelle  et  Representation  Proportionelie). 
Translator's  note.  ^  .     ^ 

♦Suffrage  in  Germany,  though  universal  for  men  is  by  no 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  211 

directly  through  universal  suffrage.  For  as  long  as 
the  oppressed  class,  in  this  case  the  proletariat,  is  not 
ripe  for  its  economic  emancipation,  just  so  long  will 
its  majority  regard  the  existing  order  of  society  as  the 
only  one  possible,  and  form  the  tail,  the  extreme  left 
wing,  of  the  capitalist  class.  But  the  more  the 
proletariat  matures  toward  its  self -emancipation,  the 
more  does  it  constitute  itself  as  a  separate  class  and 
elect  its  own  representatives  in  place  of  the  capital- 
ists. Universal  suffrage  is  the  gauge  of  the  maturity 
of  the  working  class.  It  can  and  will  never  be  any- 
thing else  but  that  in  the  modern  state.  But  that  is 
sufficient.  On  the  day  when  the  thermometer  of 
universal  suffrage  reaches  its  boiling  point  among 
the  laborers,  they  as  well  as  the  capitalists  will  know 
what  to  do. 

The  state,  then,  did  not  exist  from  all  eternity. 
There  have  been  societies  without  it,  that  had  no 
idea  of  any  state  or  public  power.  At  a  certain  stage 
of  economic  development,  which  was  of  necessity 
accompanied  by  a  division  of  society  into  classes,  the 
state  became  the  inevitable  result  of  this  division. 
We  are  now  rapidly  approaching  a  stage  of  evolution 
in  production,  in  which  the  existence  of  classes  has 
not  only  ceased  to  be  a  necessity,  but  becomes  a  pos- 
itive fetter  on  production.  Hence  these  classes  must 
fall  as  inevitably  as  they  once  arose.  The  state  must 
irrevocably  fall  with  them.  The  society  that  is  to  re- 
organize production  on  the  basis  of  a  free  and  equal 
association  of  the  producers,  will  transfer  the  ma- 
chinery of  state  where  it  will  then  belong:  into  the 


means  equal,  but  founded  on  property  qualifications.  In  Prus- 
sia, e.  g.,  a  three  class  system  of  voting  is  in  force  which  is 
best  illustrated  by  the  following  figures:  In  1898  there  were 
6,447,253  voters;  3.26  per  cent  belonged  to  the  first  class, 
11.51  per  cent  to  the  second  class,  and  85.35  per  cent  to  the 
third  class.  But  the  947,218  voters  of  the  first  and  second 
classes  had  twice  as  many  votes  as  the  five  and  a  half 
millions  of  the  third  class. 


212  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

Museum  of  Antiquities  by  the  side  of  the  spinning 
wheel  and  the  bronze  ax. 


Civilization  is,  as  we  have  seen,  that  stage  of  so- 
ciety, in  which  the  division  of  labor,  the  resulting 
exchange  between  individuals,  and  the  production  of 
commodities  combining  them,  reach  their  highest  de- 
velopment and  revolutionize  the  whole  society. 

The  production  of  all  former  stages  of  society  was 
mainly  collective,  and  consumption  was  carried  on  by 
direct  division  of  products  within  more  or  less  small 
communes.  This  collective  production  was  confined 
within  the  narrowest  limits.  But  it  implied  the  con- 
trol of  production  and  of  the  products  by  the  pro- 
ducers. They  knew  what  became  of  their  product:  it 
did  not  leave  their  hands  until  it  was  consumed  by 
them.  As  long  as  production  moved  on  this  basis,  it 
could  not  grow  beyond  the  control  of  the  producers, 
and  it  could  not  create  any  strange  ghostly  forces 
against  them.  Under  civilization,  however,  this  is 
the  inevitable  rule. 

Into  the  simple  process  of  production,  the  division 
of  labor  was  gradually  interpolated.  It  undermined 
the  communism  of  production  and  consumption,  it 
made  the  appropriation  of  products  by  single  indi- 
viduals the  prevailing  rule,  and  thus  introduced  the 
exchange  between  individuals,  in  the  manner  men- 
tioned above.  Gradually,  the  production  of  commodi- 
ties became  the  rule. 

This  mode  of  production  for  exchange,  not  for  home 
consumption,  necessarily  passes  the  products  on  from 
hand  to  hand.  The  producer  gives  his  product  away 
In  exchauge.  He  does  no  longer  know  what  becomes 
of  it.  With  the  advent  of  money  and  of  the  trader 
who  steps  in  as  a  middleman  between  the  producers, 
the  process  of  exchange  becomes  still  more  compli- 
cated.    The  fate  of  the  products  becomes  still  more 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  213 

uncertain.  The  number  of  merchants  is  great  and 
one  does  not  know  what  the  other  is  doing.  The 
products  now  pass  not  only  from  hand  to  hand, 
but  also  from  market  to  market.  The  pro- 
ducers have  lost  the  control  of  the  aggregate 
production  in  their  sphere  of  life,  and  the  mer- 
chants have  not  yet  acquired  this  control.  Prod- 
ucts and  production  become  the  victims  of  chance. 
But  chance  is  only  one  pole  of  an  interrelation,  the 
other  pole  of  which  is  called  necessity.  In  nature, 
where  chance  seems  to  reign  also,  we  have  long  ago 
demonstrated  the  innate  necessity  and  law  that  de- 
termines the  course  of  chance  on  every  line.  But 
what  is  true  of  nature,  holds  also  good  of  society. 
Whenever  a  social  function  or  a  series  of  social  pro- 
cesses become  too  powerful  for  the  control  of  man, 
whenever  they  grow  beyond  the  grasp  of  man  and 
seem  to  be  left  to  mere  chance,  then  the  peculiar  and 
innate  laws  of  such  processes  shape  the  course  of 
chance  with  increased  elementary  necessity.  Such 
laws  also  control  the  vicissitudes  of  the  production 
and  exchange  of  commodities.  For  the  individual 
producer  and  exchanger,  these  laws  are  strange,  and 
often  unknown,  forces,  the  nature  of  which  must  be 
laboriously  investigated  and  ascertained.  These  eco- 
nomic laws  of  production  are  modified  by  the  differ- 
ent stages  of  this  form  of  production.  But  generally 
speaking,  the  entire  period  of  civilization  is  dominated 
by  these  laws.  To  this  day,  the  product  controls  the 
producer.  To  this  day,  the  aggregate  production  of 
society  is  managed,  not  on  a  uniform  plan,  but  by 
blind  laws,  that  rule  with  elementary  force  and  find 
their  final  expression  in  the  storms  of  periodical  com- 
mercial crises. 

We  have  seen  that  human  labor  power  is  enabled 
at  a  very  early  stage  of  production  to  produce  con- 
siderably more  than  is  needed  to  maintain  the  pro- 


214  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

ducer.  We  have  found  that  this  stage  coincided  in 
general  with  the  first  appearance  of  the  division  of 
labor  and  of  exchange  between  individuals.  Now,  it 
was  not  long  before  the  great  truth  was  discovered 
that  man  may  himself  be  a  commodity,  and  that 
human  labor  power  may  be  exchanged  and  exploited 
by  transforming  a  man  into  a  slave.  Hardly  had 
exchange  between  men  been  established,  when  men 
themselves  were  also  exchanged.  The  active  asset 
bcame  a  passive  liability,  whether  man  wanted  it  or 
not. 

Slavery,  which  reaches  its  highest  development  in 
civilization,  introduced  the  first  great  division  of  an 
exploited  and  an  exploiting  class  into  society.  This 
division  continued  during  the  whole  period  of  civiliza- 
tion. Slavery  is  the  first  form  of  exploitation,  charac- 
teristic of  the  antique  world.  Then  followed  feudal- 
ism in  the  middle  ages,  and  wage  labor  in  recent 
times.  These  are  the  three  great  forms  of  servitude, 
characteristic  of  the  three  great  epochs  of  civiliza- 
tion. Their  invariable  mark  is  either  open  or,  in 
modern  times,  disguised  slavery. 

The  stage  of  commodity  production  introducing 
civilization  is  marked  economically  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  (1)  metal  coins  and,  thus,  of  money  as  capital, 
of  interest,  and  of  usury;  (2)  merchants  as  middlemen 
between  producers;  (3)  private  property  and  mort- 
gage; (4)  slave  labor  as  the  prevailing  form  of  produc- 
tion. The  form  of  the  family  corresponding  to  civili- 
zation and  becoming  its  pronounced  custom  is  mono- 
gamy, the  supremacy  of  man  over  woman,  and  the 
monogamous  family  as  the  economic  unit  of  society. 
The  aggregation  of  civilized  society  is  the  state,  which 
throughout  all  typical  periods  is  the  state  of  the 
ruling  class,  and  in  all  cases  mainly  a  machine  for 
controlling  the  oppressed  and  exploited  class.'  Civil- 
ization is  furthermore  characterized  on  oneside  by 


BARBARISM    AND    CIVILIZATION  21$ 

the  permanent  introduction  of  the  contrast  between 
city  and  country  as  the  basis  of  the  entire  division  of 
social  labor;  on  the  other  side  by  the  introduction 
of  the  testament  by  which  the  property  holder  is 
enabled  to  dispose  of  his  property  beyond  the  hour 
of  his  death.  This  institution  is  a  direct  blow  at  the 
gentile  constitution,  and  was  unknown  in  Athens 
until  the  time  of  Solon.  In  Rome  it  was  introduced 
very  early,  but  we  do  not  know  when.*  In  Ger- 
many it  was  originated  by  the  priests  in  order  that 
the  honest  German  might  bequeath  his  property  to 
the  church  without  any  interference. 

With  this  fundamental  constitution,  civilization  had 
accomplished  things  for  which  the  old  gentile  society 
was  no  match  whatever.  But  these  exploits  were 
accomplished  by  playing  on  the  most  sordid  passions 
and  instincts  of  man,  and  by  developing  them  at  the 
expense  of  all  his  other  gifts.  Barefaced  covetousness 
was  the  moving  spirit  of  civilization  from  its  first 
dawn  to  the  present  day;  wealth,  and  again  wealth, 
and  for  the  third  time  wealth;  wealth,  not  of  society, 
but  of  the  puny  individual,  was  its  only  and  final 
aim.  If  nevertheless  the  advanced  development  of 
science,  and  at  repeated  times  the  highest  flower  of 
art,  fell  into  its  lap,  this  was  only  due  to  the  fact 

Author's  note. 

♦Lassalle's  "System  of  Acquired  Rights"  argues  In  its  sec- 
ond part  mainly  the  proposition  that  the  Roman  testament 
is  as  old  as  Rome  itself,  and  that  there  has  never  been  in 
Roman  history  "'a  time  without  a  testament."  According  to 
him,  tlie  testament  had  its  origin  in  pre-Roman  times  in  the 
cult  of  the  departed.  Lassalle,  as  a  convinced  Hegelian  of  the 
old  school,  derives  the  provisions  of  the  Roman  law,  not 
from  the  social  condition  of  the  Romans,  but  from  the 
•'speculative  conception"  of  will,  and  thus  arrives  at  this 
totally  anti-historic  conclusion.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  in  a  booli  that  draws  from  the  same  speculative  concep- 
tion the  conclusion  that  the  transfer  of  property  was  purely 
a  side  issue  in  Roman  inheritance.  Lassalle  not  only  believed 
in  the  illusions  of  Roman  jurists,,  especially  of  the  earlier 
ones,  but  he  outstripped  their  fancy. 


2l6  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

that  without  them  the  highest  emoluments  of  mod^ 
ern  wealth  would  have  been  missing.  Exploitation  of 
one  class  by  another  being  the  basis  of  civilization, 
its  whole  development  involves  a  continual  contradic- 
tion. Every  progress  of  production  is  at  the  same 
time  a  retrogression  in  the  condition  of  the  oppressed 
class,  that  is  of  the  great  majority.  Every  benefit 
for  one  class  is  necessarily  an  evil  for  the  other, 
every  new  emancipation  of  one  class  a  new  oppres- 
sion for  the  other.  The  most  drastic  proof  of  this  is 
furnished  by  the  introduction  of  machinery,  the 
effects  of  which  are  well  known  to-day.  And  while 
there  is  hardly  any  distinction  between  rights  and 
duties  among  barbarians,  as  we  have  seen,  civiliza- 
tion makes  the  difference  between  these  two  plain 
even  to  the  dullest  mind.  For  now  one  class  has 
nearly  all  the  rights,  the  other  class  nearly  all  the 
duties. 

But  this  Is  not  admitted.  What  is  good  for  the 
ruling  class.  Is  alleged  to  be  good  for  the  whole  of 
society  with  which  the  ruling  class  identifies  itself. 
The  more  civilization  advances,  the  more  it  is  found 
to  cover  with  the  cloak  of  charity  the  evils  necessar- 
ily created  by  it,  to  excuse  them  or  to  deny  their 
existence,  in  short  to  introduce  a  conventional  hypoc- 
risy that  culminates  in  the  declaration:  The  exploita- 
tion of  the  oppressed  class  is  carried  on  by  the  ex- 
ploiting class  solely  in  the  interest  of  the  exploited 
class  itself.  And  if  the  latter  does  not  recognize 
this,  but  even  becomes  rebellious,  it  is  simply  the 
worst  ingratitude  to  its  benefactors,  the  exploiters.* 


Author's  note. 

♦I  first  Intended  to  place  the  brilliant  critique  of  civiliza- 
tion, scattered  through  the  works  of  Fourier,  by  the  side  of 
Morgan's  and  of  my  own.  Unluckily  I  cannot  spare  the  time. 
I  only  wish  to  remark  that  Fourier  already  considers 
monogamy  and  private  property  in  land  the  main  characteiv 
istlcs  of  civilization,  and  that  he  calls  them  a  war  of  the 


BARBARISM     AND     CIVILIZATION  217  \ 

I      And  now,  in  conclusion,  let  me  add  Morgan's  judg- 
'  loent  of  civilization  (Ancient  Society,  page  552): 

"Since  the  advent  of  civilization,  the  outgrowth  of 
property  has  been  so  immense,  its  forms  so  diversi- 
fied, its  uses  so  expanding  and  its  management  so  in- 
telligent in  the  interest  of  its  owners  that  it  has  be- 
come, on  the  part  of  the  people,  an  unmanageable 
power.  The  human  mind  stands  bewildered  in  the 
presence  of  its  own  creation.  The  time  will  come- 
nevertheless,  when  human  intelligence  will  rise  to  the 
mastery  over  property,  and  define  the  relations  of  the 
state  to  the  property  it  protects,  as  well  as  the  obli- 
gations and  the  limits  of  the  rights  of  its  owners. 
The  interests  of  society  are  paramount  to  individual 
interests,  and  the  two  must  be  brought  into  just  and 
harmonious  relations.  A  mere  property  career  is  not 
the  final  destiny  of  mankind,  if  progress  is  to  bejthe 
law  of  the  future  as  it  has  been  of  the  past.  The 
time  which  has  passed  away  since  civilization  began 
is  but  a  fragment  of  the  past  duration  of  man's  ex- 
istence; and  but  a  fragment  of  the  ages  yet  to  come. 
The  dissolution  of  society  bids  fair  to  become  the 
termination  of  a  career  of  which  property  is  the  end 
and  aim,  because  such  a  career  contains  the  elements 
of  self-destruction.  Democracy  in  government,  broth- 
erhood in  society,  equality  in  rights  and  privileges, 
and  universal  education,  foreshadow  the  next  higher 
plane  of  society  to  which  experience,  intelligence  and 
knowledge  are  steadily  tending.  It  will  be  a  revival, 
in  a  higher  form,  of  the  liberty,  equality  and  fratern- 
ity of  the  ancient  gentes."^v 

rich  against  the  poor.  We  also  find  with  him  the  deep 
perception  that  the  Individual  families  (les  families  Incoher- 
entes)  are  the  economic  units  of  all  faulty  societies  divided 
by  opposing  interests. 

THE  END. 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


